Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Understanding the effects of the Clery Act on college students' behaviors: how can student affairs professionals change the current practices of college students with regard to safety
(USC Thesis Other)
Understanding the effects of the Clery Act on college students' behaviors: how can student affairs professionals change the current practices of college students with regard to safety
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
UNDERSTANDING THE EFFECTS OF THE CLERY ACT ON COLLEGE
STUDENTS’ BEHAVIORS: HOW CAN STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSIONALS
CHANGE THE CURRENT PRACTICES OF COLLEGE STUDENTS WITH
REGARD TO SAFETY
by
Sarvenaz Aliabadi
____________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
December 2007
Copyright 2007 Sarvenaz Aliabadi
ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my parents:
Javad and Soheila Aliabadi
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank my family and friends who have supported me
throughout this process. Above all I would like to thank my parents and brother who
have been incredibly helpful and patient during this challenging time. To my
dissertation committee, Dr. Michael Jackson, Dr. Denzil Suite, and Dr. Donahue
Tuitt, thank you for your invaluable help. I could not have asked for a more
cooperative and knowledgeable team. I would also like to thank all of the students
who gave their insights in this research study. In particular, I would like to
acknowledge the students who have been victims of crime on their college or
university campuses, especially those who lost their lives in 2007 at Virginia Tech
University.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION…………………………………………………………………........ ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS…………………………………………………………...iii
LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………………....v
LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………….vi
ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………..viii
CHAPTER ONE: BACKGROUND, PURPOSE & OVERVIEW OF STUDY……..1
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………….18
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY…………………………………………...54
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS……………………………………………………..81
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS &
IMPLICATIONS…………………………………………………………………..123
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………….149
APPENDICES……………………………………………………………………..154
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: UCLA Criminal Offenses On-campus .................................................. 4
Table 2: 45 California Four-Year Public Institutions: Criminal Offenses
On-campus ...........................................................................................................12
Table 3: National Criminal Offenses Murder/Non-Negligent
Manslaughter ........................................................................................................36
Table 4: Campus Crime Rates Since the Passage of the Clery Act .....................50
Table 5: Can Decrease in Crime Rates be Credited to the Clery Act? .................51
Table 6: Does the Clery Act Influence Student Enrollment Decisions? ..............52
Table 7: Gender of Students by Numbers and Average Given in
Percentages ..........................................................................................................64
Table 8: Ethnicity of Students by Numbers and Average Given in
Percentages ..........................................................................................................64
Table 9: Community Students Grew Up In by Numbers and Average Given
in Percentages .......................................................................................................64
Table 10: Where Students Live by Numbers and Average Given in
Percentages ..........................................................................................................64
Table 11: Year of Students in Terms of Fulfilling their Degree by Numbers
and Average Given in Percentages ......................................................................65
Table 12: Age of Students by Numbers and Average Given in Percentages ......65
Table 13: Cumulative Grade Point Average of Students by Numbers and
Average Given in Percentages .............................................................................65
Table 14: Parental Income by Numbers and Average Given in Percentages ......65
Table 15: Gender of Students Interviewed by Numbers and Average
Given in Percentages ............................................................................................67
Table 16: Ethnicity of Students Interview by Numbers and Average Given in
Percentages ...........................................................................................................67
vi
Table 17: Community Students Interviewed Grew Up In by Numbers and
Average Given in Percentages ...............................................................................67
Table 18: Places Students Interviewed Have Lived by Numbers and Average
Given in Percentages ...............................................................................................67
Table 19: Year of Students Interviewed in Terms of Fulfilling their Degree by
Numbers and Average Given in Percentages .........................................................68
Table 20: Age of Students Interviewed by Numbers and Average Given in
Percentages .............................................................................................................68
Table 21: Cumulative Grade Point Average of Students Interviewed by Numbers
and Average Given in Percentages .........................................................................68
Table 22: Parental Income of Students Interviewed by Numbers and Average
Given in Percentages ..............................................................................................69
Table 23: Looking Up Crime Reports of Universities by Numbers and Average
Given in Percentages ..............................................................................................85
Table 24: Crime Statistic Effects on Students Decision to Attend University by
Numbers and Average Given in Percentages ..........................................................86
Table 25: How Safe Students Feel During their First year at the University by
Numbers and Average Given in Percentages .......................................................108
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: How Much Knowledge Students Have About the Clery Act .............83
Figure 2: How Student Learn About Safety .......................................................98
Figure 3: Experiences of Other People Related to Crime .................................102
Figure 4: Methods Students Use to Keep Themselves Safe ..............................105
Figure 5: How Safe Students Felt: Reflecting on First-Year Experiences ........109
Figure 6: Have Students Changed How They Stay Safe ...................................115
Figure 7: Students Attending Crime Prevention Programs ...............................119
viii
ABSTRACT
The purpose of the Clery Act is to increase students’ awareness of crimes
taking place on college and university campuses. Through the analysis of student
perspectives related to crime, student affairs professionals can better understand the
influence of the Clery Act. However, whether students are changing their behaviors
over time with regard to their own safety is still in question. The purpose of this
study is to investigate how the Clery Act has changed traditional students’ (first-
time, full-time, and first-year students attending college or university directly out of
high school) behavior on college and university campuses and what it has taught
these students about how to be safe.
Qualitative and quantitative methods were used to examine the impact of the
Clery Act on Students. Qualitative research consisted of face-to-face interviews with
36 traditional undergraduate students at the University of Southern California, the
University of California, Riverside, and Pepperdine University. Quantitative data
was obtained by sending out an e-mailed link of the survey to traditional students at
each of these institutions.
Two research questions guided the study: 1) How does the Clery Act affect
current undergraduate students? In particular, what do students learn about crime as
a result of the Clery Act and how does that help them protect themselves? 2) How
has student behavior changed as a result of the Clery Act between students’ first and
fourth year at the school they attended? Particularly, does the Clery Act impact and
change student behavior over time?
ix
Overall, the findings regarding what students think about crime and the Clery
Act were mixed. Through the data analysis process it became clear that some
accomplishments of the Clery Act were considered very positive, while some areas
needed to be improved.
This study adds to the practice of student affairs by assessing how students
learn to be safe on college and university campuses. Through this assessment
student affairs professionals are better able to understand what services to provide
students in order to improve safety programs. In addition, student affairs
professionals are able to determine how the Clery Act contributes to change in
student behavior.
1
CHAPTER ONE
BACKGROUND, PURPOSE, AND OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction
Much to the dismay of Duke University supporters, given recent events it is
possible that the university is now subconsciously aligned with the scandal involving
the lacrosse team which unfolded during a March 13, 2006 party and the ensuing
events. On that day Crystal Gail Mangum, an African American stripper and escort
made, what are now, discredited accusations against three Caucasian members of
Duke University's men's lacrosse team. Mangum accused the men of raping her at a
party held at the house of two of the lacrosse team captains. However, on April 11,
2007, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper announced that all charges
against the three lacrosse players had been dropped and went even further to state
that the three were innocent of the charges (Mueller & Rotberg, 2006).
This case sparked a number of debates across the country regarding two
major issues: alcohol consumption and the racial divide on college and university
campuses. In October of 2006, the President of Duke University, Richard Brodhead,
described how alcohol consumption is not only a problem on the Duke campus but a
problem nationwide. Brodhead said in an interview with 60 Minutes,
My honest belief is that alcohol consumption at Duke is probably not very
different from on most American campuses. When I talk to presidents of
other universities, you know, you can’t imagine, or maybe you can imagine,
how many other university leaders have come up to me knowing that this
particular mess landed on my doorstep but how easily it could have landed on
someone else’s. And everyone understands that the issue of alcohol …
2
alcohol is not the only issue here but it certainly aggravated all the issues (60
Minutes, 2006).
The second issue brought about was race, and not only because the accuser in this
case was Black but also because on the night in question a number of the members of
the lacrosse team made inappropriate racial comments. President Brodhead was
quoted as saying,
To hear that any member of this community call any other member of this
world, I’m not talking just Durham, I’m not just talking our students, by a
racial epithet, there’s something just profoundly depressing about that. I’d
like to think that students wouldn’t have said these things when sober but the
fact that they said them when drunk is no comfort to me (60 Minutes, 2006).
Regardless of the contributing factors, crime on college and university
campuses is a nation-wide problem. There are a number of questions that arise as a
result of the Duke case: What are the responsibilities of the university to the
students? What are the laws that are in place to protect students? How do students
learn about crimes that have happened on their campuses?
In the story below, one student at the University of California, Los Angeles,
learns a little bit more about the current laws and what the university is doing to help
keep her safe on campus.
Mona, an 18 year old incoming first year student at the University of
California, Los Angeles, has been waiting anxiously for the day to come when she
and her parents will finally be able to go to orientation. She is so excited to be
finishing one chapter in her life and ready to begin another. She is finally there, at
3
UCLA, sitting in the auditorium listening to the administrators speak about what to
expect in the coming year:
Earlier today each of you received some literature outlining several
proactive steps the University has taken to continue to keep UCLA and you
safe. These steps include such actions as supplementing our campus police
with private security guards, changing exterior and interior locks across
campus, extending the hours of the UCLA Police Department, installing
security cameras in key areas, and increasing the number of personal safety
training programs offered to students, faculty, and staff. We have also
formalized a campus safety committee to continuously review safety
operations and make recommendations for improvements. The Vice
President for Student Affairs is chairing that committee. If you have specific
suggestions for improving campus safety, please share them with her via e-
mail.
While the University is doing everything it can to make UCLA and you safe,
you also must take an active role in keeping yourself and the campus safe.
Please exercise good safety habits: don’t walk alone at night; don’t leave
valuables unattended; don’t prop doors open; look assertive and be aware of
your surroundings; and report all suspicious activity to the campus police.
For additional safety tips, go online to review our recently published updates
and tips at http://www.ucpd/ucla.edu.
4
Please remember that students continue to be victims of crimes on all college
and university campuses. Please take the time to look at the table on page 23
of your handbook to view UCLA’s most current crime statistics (see Table 1).
Table 1:
UCLA Criminal Offenses On-campus
2002 2003 2004
a. Murder/Non-negligent manslaughter 0 0 0
b. Negligent manslaughter 0 0 0
c. Sex offenses – Forcible 16 12 8
d. Sex offenses - Non-forcible 0 0 0
e. Robbery 6 5 1
f. Aggravated assault 22 6 7
g. Burglary 182 176 183
h. Motor vehicle theft 32 43 55
i. Arson 1 0 0
From: “Criminal Offenses On-Campus,” by US Department of Education, 2006
We have an exciting journey ahead of us. I urge you to find time in your
schedule to enjoy one of the many enrichment programs, artistic
performances, or sporting events that are available to all students. I’m sure
you will not be disappointed. Welcome to UCLA!
After a few minutes Mona realizes that she cannot help but think to herself, “I
thought UCLA was a really safe school, I didn’t think there was really any crime
here.” She is beginning to feel a little bit scared and the reality begins to settle in
that this is no longer suburban San Diego. All she really hears now is the student
affairs staff and administrators saying, “…crime is prevalent on all university
campuses, and it is up to you to prevent yourself from being a statistic.” Mona looks
5
over at her parents and sees that they are concerned as well. She cannot help but
think, “Why did they tell us all of that, this is just scaring all of us.”
The point that the UCLA administrators were making is very simple; it is that
knowledge is power. With every bit of information a person has about a subject,
such as crime, they are inherently better equipped to face the subject and tackle it.
Crime is an issue that all college and university campuses are required to address.
Since colleges and universities have a responsibility to their students, faculty, and
staff crime is something that cannot be overlooked and it is important that it be
approached proactively rather than passively. This is something that the Jeanne
Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act does,
proactively raises awareness about criminal acts on campuses with the hope of being
preventative. The purpose of the Act is that the more students know about crime and
crime prevention; the more likely they are to make good choices and not become
victims.
Background of the Problem
Jeanne Ann Clery had her heart set on attending Tulane University in New
Orleans where both of her older brothers, Howard and Benjamin, had graduated.
Her parents, Howard and Connie, were also advisory board members at Tulane. She
was set to begin her freshman year in the fall of 1985. However, during Jeanne’s
senior year at Agnes Irwin School in Rosemont, Pennsylvania, Karen Mencken, a
second year student at Tulane University, was raped and murdered (Antonelli, 2005).
6
“I’ll never forget; we were so horrified that it happened at Tulane,” Connie
Clery recalled recently. “We said, ‘Oh, Jeanne, we just can’t let you go so far
away.” Together mother and daughter searched for a college closer to home.
Connie Clery said they settled on “the serene, rural campus” of Lehigh University, in
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania because it was only an hour-and-20-minute drive from
their home (Antonelli, 2005). But their sense of security was short-lived.
No one in the Clery family had asked about campus crime at Lehigh
University. Then, on April 5, 1986, Jeanne was raped and killed in the residence
halls (Antonelli, 2005). Pennsylvania courts sentenced Josoph M. Henry, a
sophomore at Lehigh University, to death after being charged with criminal
homicide and rape in connection with the assault and strangulation of Jeanne Ann
Clery in a residence hall. In the spring of her freshman year, 19 year old Jeanne, was
strangled with a wire spring toy, had been beaten, bitten and raped before she was
found dead in her room the following day. Henry had entered her room through a
door that had been propped open with a pizza box (New York Times, 1986).
As a result of this incident, Jeanne Clery’s parents decided to do something to
change how colleges and universities disseminate information and approach crime
on campuses forever.
The response by the Clery’s resulted in a series of new laws being passed.
The first being Public Law 101-542 or the Student Right-to-Know and Campus
Security Act which was signed into law by President George Herbert Walker Bush in
1990 (U.S. Department of Education, 2005). Title II of this Act required all
7
institutions of higher education that received federal financial assistance to report
incidences of crimes on their campus. In particular this act encouraged the
development of security policies and procedures on all campuses, created uniformity
and consistency in the reporting of crimes on campus, and encouraged the
development of new policies and procedures that would address sexual assaults and
racial violence on college campuses (U.S. Department of Education, 2005).
The Act has since been amended to Public Law 105-244; also known as the
Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics
Act. Under this legislation new categories were added to further explain how crime
statistics should be reported. These additions include an obligation to report crime
statistics for public property in and immediately adjacent to the college campus, a
geographic breakdown of statistics, and a daily public crime log for schools with a
police or security department. In addition, colleges and universities must give timely
warnings, oftentimes through campus e-mail, to the campus community about crimes
that pose an ongoing threat to the safety of students, faculty, and staff. The
institution is only required to notify the community of crimes which are covered by
the Clery Act statistics. The law was also amended to require that the Department of
Education collect the crime statistics reported and make them available to the public
(U.S. Department of Education, 2005).
The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime
Statistics Act (the Clery Act) holds two major purposes in higher education: one
focuses on prospective students and the other focuses on current students. The first
8
purpose is to help prospective students and their parents make informed decisions
regarding their choice of college or university. The more they know about what is
going on at the given institution, the more information they have to decide what is
best for them. The second reason is to help keep those students, faculty, staff, or
others already at the college campuses aware of the potential risks they are facing
and in turn make informed decisions regarding their behavior. The hope is that as a
result of all of the information available, members of the college community will
make intelligent choices about their own behavior and thereby reduce the chance of
becoming a victim of criminal activity (Gregory & Janosik, 2002).
Much like any other piece of legislation, not everyone agrees with the
usefulness of the Clery Act (Gregory & Janosik, 2003). Some say that money spent
on increased awareness could be spent more efficiently if it was used to support
more active ideas such as increased community activism in the form of
neighborhood watch programs, hiring additional law enforcement personnel, or even
upgrading security on campus. However, regardless of the debated efficacy, it is
undeniable that the Clery Act has had an impact on the day-to-day operations at
every college and university across the United States.
Statement of the Problem
The problem that student affairs staff and administration face nation-wide is
not how the Clery Act is increasing knowledge on campus, but how to use this
knowledge to change student behaviors at colleges and universities. The purpose of
the Clery Act is to increase students’ awareness of crimes that are taking place at
9
their colleges and universities, but it is still unclear if the Clery Act is causing them
to change their behaviors over time, and therefore result in students decreasing the
likelihood of being in potentially harmful situations.
There are an increasing number of quantitative studies on the Clery Act that
have attempted to track the impact of the legislation. However, the question still
remains, what has been the experience of students over time? A gap exists in
examining the experiences of students through a mixed methods approach and
thereby discovering if student experiences related to crime and the Clery Act lead
them to change their behavior. By analyzing the students' perspectives, student
affairs professionals will have a better understanding of the influence of the Clery
Act on higher education.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to investigate how the Clery Act has changed
traditional students’ behavior on college and university campuses and what it has
taught these students about how to be safe. “Traditional students” is usually the term
used to describe first time, residential, full-time, and first-year enrollees direct out of
high school (Borden, 2004). Student affairs administration and staff across the
United States will use the knowledge obtained from this study in order to examine
how they can improve safety programs on campus.
The first goal of this study was to determine how the Clery Act has affected
the learning and development process of current undergraduate students with regard
to their learning about crime and the measures they take to protect themselves. The
10
second goal was to explore how the Clery Act has influenced and changed student
behaviors over time. Specifically, this study explored changes in student behavior as
a result of the Clery Act between their first and fourth year on campus.
The researcher used the knowledge gained from the first and second goals in
order to make recommendations to student affairs professionals about what they can
do to make students safer. Understanding the problems associated with the Clery
Act will help students, their parents, and student affairs staff and administrators to
better control and understand their environment at colleges and universities across
the United States.
Research Questions
This mixed methods research study aimed to gather information regarding
two factors related to students: what the Clery Act has taught students about how to
be safe, and how the Clery Act has changed student behaviors on college and
university campuses. The goal of this study is to share this new information with
student affairs administration and staff in order to improve safety programs on
college and university campuses. The following research questions will guide the
study:
Research Question 1: How does the Clery Act affect current undergraduate
students? In particular, what do students learn about crime as a result of the
Clery Act and how does that help them protect themselves?
11
Research Question 2: How has student behavior changed as a result of the
Clery Act between students’ first and fourth year at the school they attended?
Particularly, does the Clery Act impact and change student behavior over
time?
Significance of the Study
Making improvements in student affairs is an area within higher education
that is continually growing. There is a need to gain a greater understanding of how
to improve current practices through research. Once completed, this study will add
to the practice of student affairs by assessing how students learn to be safe on college
and university campuses. Through this assessment, student affairs professionals will
be able to better understand what services to provide students in order to improve
safety programs. In addition, student affairs professionals will be able to determine
how the Clery Act contributes to change in student behavior. Through the
knowledge gained, student affairs professionals can learn whether change in
behavior is a result of the Clery Act or if change is brought about through other
methods.
At this time college and university students are at risk in terms of crime on
campus. For example, of the 45 public four-year institutions that are in California, in
2003- 2005 all of them had experienced a number of criminal activities on campus,
(see Table 2). Burglary was the most common criminal activity followed by motor
vehicle theft, sex offenses, assault, robbery, arson, and murder or manslaughter (US
Department of Education-Office of Postsecondary Education, 2007). The issues
12
regarding criminal offenses cannot be neglected and this study will better inform
student affairs professionals about possible solutions to decrease crimes committed
on campus.
Table 2:
45 California Four-Year Public Institutions: Criminal Offenses On-Campus
2003 2004 2005
a. Murder/Non-negligent manslaughter 0 0 0
b. Negligent manslaughter 0 0 0
c. Sex offenses – Forcible 134 159 146
d. Sex offenses - Non-forcible 7 2 7
e. Robbery 75 36 74
f. Aggravated assault 115 100 92
g. Burglary 1,383 1,165 1,226
h. Motor vehicle theft 723 652 645
i. Arson 84 52 35
From: “Criminal Offenses On-Campus,” by US Department of Education, 2007
The goal of the Clery Act is to create change by first knowing better and then
in turn, doing better. Currently student affairs professionals do not know what is
causing changes in student behavior with regard to crime. Through this study the
researcher hopes to answer two questions. In terms of students, the question is not
only whether the Clery Act has increased their awareness with regard to crime but
also whether it has decreased the likelihood that students will be victims of crimes
during their four years on college campuses. The second question is regarding how
students’ awareness has changed over time, between their first and fourth years at the
institution.
13
Limitations of the Study
Limitations are factors that cannot be controlled by the researcher;
throughout the study they can also identify potential weaknesses of the study
(Creswell, 2003). Numerous limitations exist for this study. The first is the limited
mixed methods research done on the Clery Act. Although there has been some
quantitative research regarding the Clery Act, little has been done in terms of
qualitative research.
Resource constraints are another limitation in this study. The researcher will
be looking at a small sample size in terms of the number of institutions that will be
studied. The focus will be on three universities in Southern California: the
University of Southern California (USC), the University of California, Riverside
(UCR), and Pepperdine University (Pepperdine).
Since the three universities chosen for the study were researched over a short
period of time (four months), another possible limitation to the study was the time
constraint. As a result of the limited time available to conduct the interviews,
selection of students participating in the interviews will be based on availability.
In addition, this was not a longitudinal study of the same 36 students over
their four year undergraduate career, but rather a snapshot. The researcher did not
follow the same students throughout their four years on campus, therefore creating
an additional limitation.
14
The next limitation involved randomization of students who participated in
the study; because there was little randomization, a selection bias was created. The
researcher asked administrators on the given campuses to select students to
participate in this study. Due to the criteria of the researcher, that the students who
participated in the study must be traditional students, a bias may be created.
The difficulty that the researcher may encounter as a result of the completion
of the surveys may be another limitation. A survey was used in this study to obtain
information from students at USC, UCR, and Pepperdine. Since no incentives were
offered to complete the survey, the responses may be low and the reasons that some
students do respond will be unknown.
The final limitation is in interpretations of the qualitative data, and is
common to interviews and other types of qualitative research. The way the
researcher interprets the responses of the subjects may be biased. One reason for this
may be due to the fact that the researcher is a woman and perhaps a woman’s views
on crime differ from the views of a man. This limitation is very common however
and somewhat inevitable (Creswell, 2003).
Delimitations of the Study
Delimitations can be controlled for and are used to narrow the scope of a
study (Creswell, 2003). It can be argued that because the study will be focused on
institutions that are relatively close to each other in terms of geographic proximity,
the locations of the universities creates a bias and is an additional limitation to the
study. However, the major characteristic that these universities share is the fact that
15
they are all located in Southern California. USC is a very large, private institution,
UCR is a large, public institution, and Pepperdine is a medium-sized, private
institution with a church affiliation. All three of these universities are different and
together are more indicative of nationwide trends in crime.
Definitions of Key Terms and Related Concepts
Non-Campus: Facilities, including Greek housing, remote classrooms, or non-
campus buildings, including those owned, controlled, or leased by the university or
recognized student organizations.
On Campus: Residential facilities for students on campus and other campus
buildings or properties.
Public Law 101-542/ Student Right-to-Know and Campus Security Act:
Requires institutions participating in the student financial aid programs under Title
IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 to disclose information about campus safety
policies and procedures and to provide statistics concerning whether certain crimes
took place on campus. In addition, the Act requires the Secretary of Education to
make a one-time report to Congress on campus crime statistics.
Public Law 105-244/ Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and
Campus Crime Statistics Act: The 1998 amendment that formally named the law
after Jeanne Clery. Under this amendment to the legislation five categories were
added to further explain how crime statistics should be reported. These additions
include an obligation to report crime statistics for public property in and immediately
adjacent to the college campus, a geographic breakdown of statistics, distributing a
16
copy of the annual security report to all current students and employees either in
writing or by publicizing its availability online, and a daily public crime log for
schools with a police or security department. In addition, colleges and universities
must make timely warnings, oftentimes through campus e-mail, to the campus
community about crimes that pose an ongoing threat to the safety of students and
employees in their Annual Campus Security Report. Two examples of such e-mails
are presented in Appendix A from the University of Southern California's
Department of Public Safety (2006) and Appendix B from the University of
California, Riverside Police Department (2006).
Public Property: Unobstructed public areas immediately adjacent to or running
through the campus such as parks, streets, sidewalks, and public parking facilities.
Student Affairs: The area within higher education that is responsible for
experiences that students have outside of the classroom. This learning that occurs
outside of the classroom is what creates the balanced student who is a contributing
member of the campus community. The field of student affairs includes judicial
affairs, residence life, admissions, counseling, financial aid, orientation, recreation,
academic support services, and international students.
Student Affairs Professionals: Professionals working in the field of student affairs.
Timely Warning: Neither the language of the Clery Act nor the Department of
Education defines “timely.” The warning should be issued as soon as the pertinent
information is available because the intent of a timely warning is to alert the campus
17
community of a potential threat. The responsibility for the warning rests solely with
the institution.
Traditional Students: First-time, full-time, and first-year students attending college
or university directly out of high school
Organization of the Dissertation
In this chapter, the background of the Clery Act is briefly discussed and the
gap in the current research regarding the Act is evaluated thus determining the
usefulness of pursuing research on this topic. Chapter 2 reviews literature on the
Clery Act including its history and its applications. In addition, Chapter 2 highlights
the theories that provide a deeper understanding of student behavior and how that
behavior changes over time. Chapter 3 illustrates the methodology, data collection,
and data analysis procedures for the study. The findings of the study are presented in
Chapter 4. Chapter 5 follows with a discussion regarding the implications for
practice, suggestions for mediation, and potential future research. Finally, a list of
references that were cited throughout the study and the appendices are included.
18
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
Choosing a postsecondary institution is a major decision for traditional
students and their families. Along with academic, financial, and geographic
considerations, the issue of campus safety is a vital concern for many. The
groundbreaking Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus
Crime Statistics Act, which was enacted in 1990, has transformed colleges and
universities. There are many issues that challenge students today as society is more
complex, there is more crime, and the world’s population is larger than at any other
time in history (Evans et al, 1998). College and university students today face many
different concerns regarding safety compared to their parents and grandparents.
These differences are not only in terms of actual crime statistics at colleges and
universities, but also in terms of the knowledge that students today have access to as
a result of the Clery Act’s mission (Gregory & Janosik, 2002).
In this chapter, the researcher reviewed the predominantly quantitative
research available regarding the effects of the Clery Act on student behavior at
colleges and universities. The researcher examined the role of the Clery Act and the
factors that lead to changed behaviors in students in terms of crime protection. In
addition, the researcher will review the theoretical literature regarding student
development and how student behaviors change. The researcher examined how
students change their behaviors over time and become more aware of their
19
surroundings; eventually using the knowledge they gain to decrease the likelihood
that they will be victims of crime.
Roots of the Clery Act- In Loco Parentis
Upon studying the foundations of higher education in the United States,
colleges and universities took on a role of “in loco parentis” with students. In loco
parentis can be traced back to the dawn of the colleges of the American colonies in
the 1700s (Thelin, 2003). The concept of in loco parentis describes an individual
who takes on parental status and responsibilities for another individual, usually a
young person, without formally adopting that person. For example, legal guardians
are said to stand in loco parentis with respect to the children for whom they provide.
However, the most common usage of in loco parentis relates to the role of colleges
and universities, and specifically the relationship between the student affairs
professionals and the students.
In loco parentis during the period of the colonial colleges, was a setting in
which college life was described as “a large family over which the president ruled
like a fond but demanding father” (Hoekema, 1996, p. 1). Under this definition,
almost anything and everything involving students was the responsibility of the
professors and the president. Even in the 18
th
century however, the application of in
loco parentis was limited to reasonable punishment in light of circumstances such as
the nature of the infraction, method of discipline, and the age of the student (Zirkel &
Reichner, 1987). This could be attributed to the clerical training of many of the early
presidents. Clergymen, or at least men trained in divinity, were common in early
20
higher education institutions. As a result, the founding fathers of many of the first
colleges were focused on things like good citizenship and high levels of moral
conduct (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997).
Originally developed in the context described above, in loco parentis evolved
and became more generalized as a legal model against which the overall authority of
colleges and universities against students and vice versa may be reviewed in the
courts (Van Alstyne, 1969). In essence, the notion of in loco parentis held a dual
role,
…On one hand, college authorities were granted the authority to dictate the
permissible limits of student conduct, within broad limits, regardless of
whether the students themselves approved of their actions and policies, just
as a parent may control a child’s conduct. On the other hand, institutions
were held to a correspondingly higher standard of care, and in return for the
authority to control conduct they were expected to protect their charges
against dangers whose seriousness the students, in their inexperience and
immaturity, might fail to understand, (Hoekema, 1996, p. 5).
It was this balance of power, this control, which was the core of in loco parentis. It
offered a clear understanding of how rules were made, what they should be, and who
would enforce them. Students understood and acknowledged that administrators had
power over them. Regardless of whether the student agreed with this situation or
not, for years it was generally accepted. This power given to the colleges was
usually accompanied with sincere compassion and genuine care for each student.
Perhaps it is this genuine concern that allowed this type of philosophy to thrive.
In 1913, Gott v. Berea College firmly implanted the idea of the college as a
parent to the student by ruling that “…the university operates in place of the parent
21
and is responsible for physical, mental, and moral development,” (Grossi &
Edwards, 1997, p. 832). In this case students of the college campus frequented a
restaurant owned by Gott in Berea across from the Berea College campus. The
college amended its rules to forbid patronage by students to establishments not
owned by the college. The penalty for doing so was dismissal. Several students who
visited Gott’s restaurant were subsequently dismissed and the number and frequency
of student customers diminished considerably subsequent to the dismissals. Gott
filed suit against Berea College to prevent the enforcement of this mandate as well as
for compensatory damages (Melear, 2003). However, the court followed the
doctrine of in loco parentis ruling for the College that:
College authorities stand in loco parentis concerning the physical and moral
welfare and mental training of the pupils, and we are unable to see why, to
that end, they may not make any rule or regulation for the government or
betterment of their pupils that a parent could for the same purpose, (Melear,
2003, p. 127).
The court noted that a public institution, one supported “from the public
treasure” had more difficult criteria to meet regarding amending rules, but since
Berea College was a private institution, the implied contract between student and
college was sufficient enough to forbid certain activities from taking place. In
addition, the court reviewed the relationship between Gott and Berea College to
determine if there was a contractual agreement, which the college had broken, but
found none. Finally, the court reviewed the question of unreasonable, malicious, or
wrongful restraint on trade by the actions of the college but could find no evidence of
such (Malear 2003).
22
Throughout the history of higher education in loco parentis allowed colleges
and universities a long existence of control over their students’ behaviors. As time
passed, colleges and universities moved away from this concept for two main
reasons. The first reason was similar to many of the changes in higher education, in
that the post World Word II era had a big effect on how in loco parentis continued to
be conceptualized. World War II presented a defining moment by opening the doors
of education to all interested, men and women. According to Hoekema (1996), this
expansion in student enrollment at colleges and universities was the result of “the
already well-entrenched conception of college life as the proper means of educating,
civilizing, and acculturating American youth” (p. 2). College was something many
young men and women already wanted and were provided during World War II with
the passage of the G.I. Bill. The G.I. Bill made it possible for all G.I.’s to pursue
their education for free, resulting in the expansion of colleges and universities
throughout the United States.
As the number of students enrolled in institutions increased, the governing
philosophy of in loco parentis would be called in to question. These men coming
back from the war were not boys; they did not want a parental figure to guide their
actions and were not going to tolerate the current culture of the colleges and
universities. They were not willing to submit to the assumptions of in loco parentis
and were more self-directed in the pursuit of their academic goals than their
predecessors (Fass, 1986). Additionally, these students were more confident in
themselves and their abilities, they were not afraid to question the principles and
23
governing policies of the university. This was the first step in the demise of in loco
parentis as defined by the colonial colleges.
The second step in the downfall of in loco parentis occurred as a result of
new court decisions that focused on the 14th amendment rights of students. Society
was already changing and those changes were reflected in the culture of college and
university campuses. The 1960s brought rebellion and campus demonstrations over
the Vietnam War and the fight for civil rights which led students to challenge the
campus administrations (Thelin, 2004). As a consequence of all of the activism that
students were engaging in, colleges and universities began dismissing them for
participating in civil rights activities and other protests. When the courts did decide
to intervene in such cases, they applied the due process clause of the 14
th
amendment
(Melear, 203). According to the 14
th
amendment, all U.S. citizens are guaranteed
procedural fairness and no government shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property (U.S. Constitution: 14th Amendment, 2006). This new understanding of
higher education as a property right helped to lead in the concept of the “student-
university contract.” The courts characterized this contractual relationship as one in
which the institution provided a service, which was education, and the students pay a
fee to receive that service (Lawson & Daniels, 1974).
The concept of the contractual relationship between the student and the
university was first brought to court in the case of Dixon v. Alabama State Board of
Education. In this case 29 African American students of Alabama State College
participated in a sit-in at an off campus eatery. Students, including those from the
24
sit-in, held subsequent mass demonstrations outside a court proceeding involving
another student. These students were reportedly in attendance at additional rallies
involving hundreds of students in several cities. The president advised the student
body that the demonstration was disrupting the orderly conduct of the college. After
another demonstration, the president presented the names of the students and his
report of incidents to the State Board of Education. The Board expelled the six
plaintiffs. The Board of Education notified each student of the expulsion decision.
The students filed for a permanent injunction to restrain the State Board of Education
from obstructing their right to attend college. The U. S. District Court for the Middle
District of Alabama upheld the expulsions. The students appealed. The Court of
Appeals reversed and remanded the decision (Dixon v. Alabama State Board of
Education, 1961).
The dismissal of the students at Alabama State College was implemented
without providing them with notice of the charges against them. In this case the
issue at hand was whether or not due process requires any notice and some
opportunity for a hearing in a state supported college. The courts decided that the
answer was yes.
Although no rule existed which required a hearing, the college’s usual
practice had been to grant a hearing to students prior to decisions of expulsion. The
court reasoned that any legislative entity acting to cause injury to an individual must
adhere to constitutional due process requirements. The minimum requirements of
due process were to be determined by the circumstances and interests of the parties
25
involved in the action. Since the actions of the government cannot be arbitrary,
expulsion from a state college was determined to be of significant interest to an
individual (Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, 1961).
Attending college was not looked upon as a constitutional right therefore
expulsion required an appropriate level of due process since the state was attempting
to prohibit an individual’s privilege. Due process requires notice and a hearing. The
notice should contain specific charges and grounds justifying the expulsion. The
hearing may vary according to the circumstances of the case. The students should
also have been given names of witnesses and a report of the facts of the allegations.
The student should have had the opportunity to present, to proper authorities, a
defense and corroborating testimony pertaining to the specific charges (Dixon v.
Alabama State Board of Education, 1961).
According to Bickel and Lake (1999), “Dixon is a prime example of what
many believed in loco parentis meant in that period. The idea of in loco parentis had
taken such deep root that even the lower federal court in Dixon agreed with the
college,” (p. 38). However, upon appeal, the court disagreed and overturned the
long-standing protections that were given to the university against judicial review by
ruling that students at public institutions were entitled to a minimum of fundamental
due process, thus identifying higher education as an entitlement rather than a
privilege thereby creating a contractual relationship between the university and the
students. Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education is thought to have sounded the
“death knell” of in loco parentis (Fowler, 1984).
26
It is no coincidence that the demise of in loco parentis is connected to the
birth of students’ fiscal control and their civil rights (Weigel, 2004). The decline of
in loco parentis from the colleges and universities lead campuses to the
understanding that the “...proper function of colleges and universities was to assist in
intellectual and moral development rather than to direct it, and to advise rather than
control,” (Fass, 1986). Today, these concepts of advising and assisting are still very
prevalent on college campuses and are done by student affairs professionals. Over
time, this shared governance philosophy has become the norm with students in turn
assuming more responsibility for themselves and their actions.
Despite the fact that over time there has been a shift away from the college or
university maintaining in loco parentis, recently there has also been an increase in
lawsuits from crime victims and their parents claiming negligence toward students
(Kaplin & Lee, 1995). Colleges and universities have a responsibility to their
students that goes above and beyond an academic curriculum. Students must adhere
to rules of conduct that are outlined in college and university Student Behavior
Handbooks. In turn the institution provides other services to students including
meals and safety personnel. As a result, student affairs professionals at colleges and
universities have had to get used to the reality that they are increasingly accountable
for student safety. Therefore, student affairs professionals must be accommodating
as they settle into their new roles redefining in loco parentis and understanding that
they are required to work hand in hand with parents and students while always
maintaining their goal of educating students on issues regarding crime and safety.
27
Rather than the university acting in loco parentis, student affairs professionals are
now acting “in compositio” or in combination with parents and students.
Historical Evolution of the Clery Act
Immediately following the death of Jeanne Clery colleges and universities
were under a great deal of pressure to disclose any criminal activity on their
campuses (Wood, 2001). The belief was that if the information regarding crime
were readily available to students, parents, and other members of the campus
community, they would be able to better protect themselves and be more aware. The
tragic circumstances surrounding Jeanne Clery’s death began a public movement to
change the way in which colleges and universities document and disclose
information regarding crime that occurs on or within certain proximity of the campus
(Santucci, Gable & Rong, 2000).
Howard and Connie Clery, the parents of Jeanne Clery, led the movement at
colleges and universities, and fought to change the system. One of the steps taken by
the Clerys was to form Security on Campus, Incorporated, which is a non-profit
organization that advocates for public reporting of campus crime statistics (Gregory
& Janosik, 2002). The organization supports the concept that crimes are taking place
and going unreported. Since the movement led by the Clerys was receiving so much
attention and making such a strong impact, their efforts were able to alter laws in
their home state of Pennsylvania. Eventually, as more people around the country
became aware of the reformed legislation in Pennsylvania it was clear that there was
28
a political opportunity available to the Clerys; it was time to take their efforts to the
federal level (Gregory & Janosik).
Elected officials were open to the lobbying efforts of the Clery’s and as a
result of the political pressures, responded with necessary and appropriate
legislation. Few elected officials opposed the legislation for three reasons: it was
regarded as being a good policy, it was attached to a very emotional case, and it
appeared to cause a low impact on the daily operations of colleges and universities.
Congress' view on this issue was that colleges and universities should be held
accountable to the campus community with regards to crime reporting. The belief
was that this should not be a strenuous task because colleges and universities should
already be equipped to report crime in an organized manner (Murphy, Arnold,
Hansen & Mertler, 2001).
Legislative Amendments to the Clery Act
In 1990, Congress enacted the Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act,
which amended the Higher Education Act of 1965. This act requires all colleges and
universities participating in Title IV student financial aid programs to disclose
campus crime statistics and security information. It requires the disclosure of crime
statistics for the most recent three years, as well as disclosure of the institution’s
current security policies. Institutions were also required to issue timely warnings
regarding crimes when necessary. All public and private Title IV eligible institutions
must comply with the requirements of this Act, which is enforced by the U. S.
29
Department of Education. The Act was amended in 1992, 1998, 2000 and 2002
(National Center for Educational Statistics, 1997).
The first amendment to the Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act
occurred in 1992 when Congress enacted the Campus Sexual Assault Victim’s Bill
of Rights as part of the Higher Education Amendments of 1992, giving victims of
sexual assault on college and university campuses certain basic rights. In addition,
this amendment required institutions to develop and distribute a policy statement
concerning their campus' sexual assault programs and targeting the prevention of sex
offenses. This policy statement is also required to address the procedures to be
followed if a sex offense does occur on a college or university campus (U.S.
Department of Education, 2005).
The second amendment of the Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act
was passed as part of the Higher Education Amendments Act of 1998. The 1998
amendments renamed the law, calling it the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus
Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act in memory of the Lehigh
University student (U.S. Department of Education, 2005).
The 1998 amendments also made several changes to the disclosure
requirements. These changes required the institutions to include two additional
crimes that must be reported, arson and negligent manslaughter (U.S. Department of
Education, 2005). It also required that three new locations of the crimes committed
be reported. These three locations within the college or university are residence
halls, non-campus buildings or property not geographically next to the campus, and
30
public property immediately adjacent to a facility that is owned or operated by the
institution for education purposes (U.S. Department of Education).
On November 1, 1999 the U.S. Department of Education issued the most
recent version of the Clery Act, which went into effect on July 1, 2000. The new
amendments require the U.S Department of Education to collect, analyze, and report
to Congress the incidences of crime on college and university campuses. The
amendments also expand the requirement of the Student Right to Know and Campus
Security Act of 1990 to state that all institutions of higher education participating in
the federal student aid programs must disclose information regarding the incidence
of crimes on campus to students (current and prospective), faculty, and staff as a part
of their campus security report. In addition, institutions that have a campus police or
security department are required to maintain a daily crime log that is available to the
public (U.S. Department of Education, 2005).
The Campus Sex Crimes Prevention Act further amended the Clery Act in
October 2000. The changes went into effect on October 28, 2002. Institutions were
required to provide the campus community with information supplied by the state
concerning registered sex offenders who are on campus (U.S. Department of
Education, 2005).
The changes that have been made to the Clery Act over the past twenty years
were in response to student affairs professionals. Early on, student affairs
professionals expressed their frustrations regarding what was not working with the
Act (Janosik & Gehring, 2003). The result has been something that was unintended
31
and beneficial. People who may not have otherwise done so have begun working
more closely within the college and university setting as a result of the Clery Act.
Staffs from different areas within the institution are working more closely with one
another because they are able to use each others expertise. This new camaraderie is
something that may even enhance working relationships (Janosik & Gehring,).
The Clery Act is intended to provide both current and prospective students
and their families with accurate, complete, and timely information regarding safety
on campus. Since the students and their families are consumers of higher education,
this safety information will make them better equipped to make more informed
decisions.
Institutional Compliance with the Clery Act
To be in compliance with Clery Act regulations, each institution has several
obligations. These obligations fall into three main categories: 1) policy disclosure;
2) records collection and retention; and 3) information dissemination (U.S.
Department of Education, 2005).
In terms of policy disclosure, each institution must provide the campus
community and the public with accurate statements of its current policies and
practices. These practices include the procedures for students and others to report
criminal actions or other emergencies occurring on campus. Security of and access
to campus facilities and campus law enforcement must also be disclosed (U.S.
Department of Education, 2005).
32
In addition, each campus must define the borders of its institution and the
areas it report in its crime statistics. Perhaps the easiest way to do this is with a map.
As defined by the Clery Act: the university must report crimes that take place on
campus, what is defined as non-campus, and what is defined as public property
(Security on Campus, 2006). On campus refers to “residential facilities for students
on campus.” Public property refers to “unobstructed public areas immediately
adjacent to or running through the campus such as streets and sidewalks.” Finally,
non-campus refers to “facilities, include Greek housing, remote classrooms, or non-
campus buildings, used regularly by students” (Security on Campus).
With regard to records collection and retention, institutions are required to
keep some campus records and to request records from law enforcement agencies.
Every institution must keep records of crimes reported to campus security
authorities. In addition colleges and universities must make a reasonable good-faith
effort to obtain certain crime statistics from appropriate law enforcement agencies to
include in an annual security report as well as a web-based report to U.S. Department
of Education. If the institution maintains a campus police or security office, it is
required to keep a daily crime log that must be open to public inspection (U.S.
Department of Education, 2005).
Information dissemination is an important aspect of compliance because it
provides campus community members with the knowledge necessary to make
cognizant decisions about their safety. Colleges and universities must disseminate
information in several ways. First, they must provide a “timely warning” of any
33
Clery Act crime that may represent an ongoing threat to the safety of students or
employees. Next, they must provide access to the campus crime log during standard
business hours. Third, they must publish an annual security report and distribute it to
all current students, faculty, and staff, and inform prospective students, faculty, and
staff about the content and availability of the report. In addition the institution must
inform the campus community where they can obtain information about registered
sex offenders. Finally, the institution is required to submit crime statistics to the
Department of Education through a web-based data collection system (U.S.
Department of Education, 2005).
Additional External Legislative Acts
There are many pieces of legislation that have influenced colleges and
universities and that are integral in understanding the progression of higher education
(Goodchild & Weschler, 1997). Acts such as Proposition 209 in California, the
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), and the Drug-Free Schools
and Communities Act which requires students receiving financial aid to pledge that
they are drug free, are all examples of legislation aimed at holding colleges and
universities at a higher level of accountability.
In the example of Proposition 209, the state, local governments, districts,
public universities, colleges, schools, and other government agencies are prohibited
from discriminating against or giving preferential treatment to any individual or
group in public employment, public education, or public contracting on the basis of
race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin (California Secretary of State, 1996).
34
All of the Acts above demonstrate that there is a desire from the public to know what
is happening in higher education. This desire illustrates that higher education is not
above the law and that it is a system that is under a very close watch of the people.
Accountability is a very important component of the Clery Act since the
public is a stakeholder in higher education. Accountability is a term that is often
used in higher education to describe a policy in which colleges or universities are
held liable for student progress. In terms of the Clery Act, it is clear that the colleges
and universities are held accountable to all of the patrons of the institution including
students (both current and prospective), faculty, staff, administration, and the campus
community.
Crime Statistics
In the early days of the Clery Act there was a good-faith effort among
colleges and universities to report crime statistics accurately. Over time, more
amendments were made to the Clery Act to assure that every institution was in
compliance and that every institution followed a certain reporting procedure. In the
beginning there was resistance from the colleges and universities because of the
extra resources, such as time and money needed, in order to comply with the Clery
Act. It is not clear whether this resistance from the college and university staff has
dissipated over time, but it is clear that there are many repercussions for those
institutions that are not in compliance (U.S. Department of Education, 2005).
One of the most frequent explanations made by schools found in violation of
the Clery Act is that they simply misunderstood what is supposed to be reported or
35
missed the deadline. The information must be reported to the United States
Department of Education by October 1 of each year. Some of the penalties for
noncompliance or providing inaccurate information regarding the Clery Act include
a fine up to $27,500 per infraction and the loss of federal funding. The most severe
monetary punishment ever bestowed under the Clery Act was a $200,000 fine to
Salem International University of West Virginia in April of 2004 for omitting more
than 80 crimes from its annual security report (Student Press Law Center, 1999).
Current Crime Statistics
The amount of crime committed on college and university campuses is
considered low when compared to nationwide crime statistics (Wood, 2001). This
fact does not however imply that it is not important to gather and report crime
statistics regarding colleges and universities. The reality is that as consumers of
higher education, students and their parents have a right to know what is happening
at any given institution. For example in terms of violent crime, it is reported that
across campuses nation-wide, 35 people were charged with murder/non-negligent
manslaughter in 2003 (see Table 3). According to the US Department of Education,
murder or non-negligent manslaughter is defined as, “the willful or non-negligent
killing of one human being by another” (US Department of Education-Office of
Postsecondary Education, 2006).
36
Table 3:
National Criminal Offenses Murder/Non-Negligent Manslaughter
Reporting Location Sector of Institution 2001 2002 2003
On Campus
Public, 4-year or above 9 9 5
Private nonprofit, 4-year or above 5 12 2
Private for-profit, 4-year or above 0 0 0
Total 14 21 7
Residence Halls (included in on-campus)
Public, 4-year or above 4 4 3
Private nonprofit, 4-year or above 3 3 0
Private for-profit, 4-year or above 0 0 0
Total 7 7 3
Non-Campus
Public, 4-year or above 4 0 0
Private nonprofit, 4-year or above 6 1 0
Private for-profit, 4-year or above 1 0 0
Total 11 1 0
Public Property
Public, 4-year or above 38 16 18
Private nonprofit, 4-year or above 34 36 10
Private for-profit, 4-year or above 10 3 0
Total 82 55 28
Total
Public, 4-year or above 51 25 23
Private nonprofit, 4-year or above 45 49 12
Private for-profit, 4-year or above 11 3 0
Total 107 77 35
From: “Criminal Offenses-Murder/Non-Negligent Manslaughter” by US Department
of Education, 2006
Theories Related to Change in Student Behavior
It is important for student affairs professionals to understand exactly how,
why, and when students change their behaviors. As stated earlier, student affairs
professionals are responsible for both in and out-of-classroom learning and
experiences that focus on the development of the whole student. Any information
37
that aids in the better understanding of students is useful to these professionals and
helps them to fulfill their duties of creating a safe environment for students.
In 1967, Sanford defined change as “an altered condition which may be
positive or negative, progressive or regressive, and from growth,” (Sanford, 1967 as
cited in Evans et al., 1998). Despite the disagreement among development theorists
regarding the characteristics of the developmental process, they all agree that there is
an orderly, sequential, and hierarchical process to development. This change may be
due to biological and psychological maturation, to individual experiences, to the
environment, or to the interactions of individuals and their environment (Pascarella
& Terenzini, 2005).
There are a number of theoretical frameworks that are useful to examine
when studying how student behaviors change over time. In particular, how the Clery
Act has created change in student behaviors. These theories include: Maslow’s
theory of human motivation, Schlossberg’s transition theory, and Erikson’s theory of
identity development.
Theory of Human Motivation
According to Abraham Maslow (1954; 1968) there are at least five sets of
goals, which are commonly referred to as basic needs. These needs are 1)
Physiological, 2) Safety, 3) Love, 4) Esteem, and 5) Self-actualization. In addition,
Maslow believes that human beings are motivated by the desire to achieve or
maintain conditions upon which these basic needs rely.
38
The physiological need refers to food and a person’s desire to maintain a
normal functioning state of his or her body. The safety need refers to the desires of a
person to live in a world that is balanced and stable. This need will be further
elaborated in the following section of the study. The love need emerges next, and
refers to human beings desire to feel a sense of belonging. The esteem need
describes the human beings desires to be appreciated and confident while facing the
world. Finally, the need for self-actualization refers to the humans desires to reach
their full potential (Maslow, 1954).
These five basic goals are all closely related to one another, being arranged in
a hierarchy based on their influences upon people. This means that the most
dominant goal will monopolize consciousness. Therefore, the less dominant needs
are minimized and sometimes forgotten. However, when a need is fairly well
satisfied, the next need emerges in order of influence on a person. This new need, in
turn, will dominate the conscious life (Maslow, 1968).
The Basic Needs – Safety
If the physiological needs of a human being are fulfilled relatively
completely, there then emerges a new set of needs, the safety needs. As defined in
Merriam-Webster’s dictionary (2006), safety is the condition of being protected
against physical, social, spiritual, financial, political, emotional, occupational,
psychological or other types or consequences of failure, damage, error, accidents,
harm or any other event. The term protection can include physical protection and
that of possessions.
39
Although in this dissertation, the researcher is interested in the needs of
young adults, understanding the safety needs of infants and children are more
comprehensible because their needs are very simple and obvious. One reason for the
clearer appearance of a threat or an infant’s reaction to danger is that they do not
inhibit this reaction at all. However, adults in our society have been taught to inhibit
this reaction at all costs. Thus even when adults feel that their safety may be
threatened, they may not be able to see this on the surface. Infants will react
completely and as if they were endangered, if they feel at all threatened (Maslow,
1954). Examples of such threats may include being disturbed or dropped suddenly,
being startled by loud noises, flashing lights, by rough handling, by general loss of
support in the parents arms, or by inadequate support (Maslow).
Another indication of the child’s need for safety is his preference for some
kind of undisrupted routine or rhythm. A child seems to want a predictable, orderly
world. For instance, injustice, unfairness, or inconsistency in the child’s parents
seems to make a child feel anxious and unsafe. This attitude may not be because of
injustice or any particular pains, but rather because this treatment threatens to make
the world the child lives in look unreliable, unsafe, or unpredictable. Young children
seem to thrive better under a system which has at least the perception of rigidity, in
which there is a schedule of some kind, some sort of routine, something that can be
counted upon, not only for the present but also far into the future. The child’s basic
need is an organized world rather than a world that is unorganized or unstructured
(Maslow, 1954).
40
This concept holds true for young adults as well. The more the world around
them is unorganized and chaotic the less they feel safe. As students emerge
themselves in their campus environment they become more aware or perhaps more
careless of issues related to safety and crime. The Clery Act aims to create an
environment on college and university campuses that emphasize safety and stability.
The less crime there is around the students, the more likely they are to establish a
routine in their lives and in turn be able to succeed at the college or university that
they attend.
From the observations of children, we can generalize and say that the average
child in our society generally prefers a safe, orderly, predictable, organized world,
which he or she can count on. This child does not appreciate a world in which
unexpected, unmanageable or other dangerous things happen. In any case this
average child desires a world in which he has omnipotent parents who protect and
shield him from harm (Maslow, 1954). Similarly, young adults attending colleges
and universities also want a campus community that is safe and orderly, they want
the “omnipotent” student affairs professionals to protect and shield them from any
harm.
The healthy, normal, fortunate young adult, in our culture is largely satisfied
in terms of safety needs. Such a person lives in a peaceful, smoothly running “good”
society, that usually makes its members feel safe enough from wild animals,
extremes in temperature, criminals, assault and murder, and tyranny. Therefore, in a
very real sense, this young adult no longer has safety needs as active motivators.
41
Just as a person who has eaten food no longer feels hungry, a safe person no longer
feels endangered (Maslow, 1954).
Transition Theory
Schlossberg defines a transition as “any event or nonevent that results in
change in relationships, routines, assumptions, and/or roles within the settings of
self, work, family, health, and/or economics,” (Schlossberg, p. 43) and stresses that a
transition is not the change itself, but the individual’s perception of the change.
Transition Theory is defined by Schlossberg (1984; Evans et al., 1998) as a vehicle
for analyzing the human response to transition. This theory argues that in order to
understand a transition’s meaning for an individual, the type, context, and impact of
the transition must be considered. The context is the individual’s relationship to the
transition or the setting, and the impact is the degree that the transition alters the
individual’s daily life. To assess an individual’s readiness for moving in the stages
of a transition, four factors must be considered and the resources available in each
component should be evaluated to determine how the individual would cope with the
transition. These four factors include: 1) Framework of the situation; 2) Self,
personal and demographic characteristics; 3) Support; and 4) Strategies (Schlossberg
et al., 1995).
The framework of the situation is important because it explains the rationale
for the transition. The framework discusses the event that prompted the transition,
the timing, and what aspects of it the individual perceives to control. The self
describes personal characteristics and psychological resources. Support refers to the
42
community that a person relies upon during a transition. Finally, strategies describe
individuals coping mechanisms regarding the transition (Schlossberg et al., 1995).
Together these four factors influence and identify how an individual copes with a
given transition (Schlossberg).
Life transitions are often the reason an individual seeks learning (Aslanian &
Brickell as cited in Jacoby, 1989; Schlossberg, 1984), and Transition Theory can be
applied to learners of any age, gender, or ethnicity, but is typically categorized as a
theory of adult development (Evans et al., 1998). Historically undergraduate
students have faced many challenging transitions without the support and
infrastructure that is characteristic of the ideal student experience (Borden, 2004;
Schlossberg, Lynch & Chickering, 1999). It is clear that all undergraduate students
are undergoing one or more types and levels of transitions (Schlossberg et al.). For
some students, the transition from living in their parents' homes and then to college
and university residence halls is a barrier. Another barrier may be the transition from
high school to college itself. Since students usually do not have the option of
attending classes part-time in high school they may be making a transition in terms
of their schedule once they attend college or university. The transitional barrier that
a transfer student may face is the task of getting accustomed to the campus
environment that a university provides, something that is very different from
community colleges. In addition, returning students have to overcome the
transitional barrier associated with being out of school for a number of years.
43
For a student like Mona, who was mentioned in Chapter 1, this theory
facilitates an examination of an individual’s progress in the transition process.
Whether a student is preparing for transition, moving through it, or ending the
transition and looking towards what is next, the theory illustrates the provision of
support for the transition, and the opportunity to eliminate barriers to the given
transition.
In terms of the Clery Act and college and university safety, students may be
transitioning from never being aware of crime to understanding the importance of
safety for the first time. Too often young adults view themselves as being
“invincible,” and have an attitude that they cannot become victims of crime, but, a
college or university campus is potentially the first place that many of these students
face the reality that anyone can be a victim.
As the student moves through the transition, a key challenge for that student
is finding a way to balance new activities with other parts of life. Therefore, as
students become exposed to life on college and university campuses, they may find it
difficult to balance safety routines into their new setting. This provides an ample
venue for student affairs professionals to challenge and support these students.
Student affairs professionals can better educate students about being safe by
improving safety programs on campus.
Identity Development
According to Erikson, “college offers the traditional-age student a
psychosocial moratorium, providing some breathing room as well as a
44
psychosocially safe place to experiment,” (Erikson, 1963, 1968; Pascarella &
Terenzini, 2005 p. 60). Without the “psychosocially safe place” there is a barrier in
the identity development of the college and university students to which Erikson is
referring.
Erikson views identity development as a process that consists of eight phases
which are known as the “eight stages of man.” His eight stages of man were
formulated, not through experimental work, but through wide-ranging experience in
psychotherapy, including extensive experience with children and adolescents from
low, as well as upper, and middle socio-economic classes. Erikson views each stage
as a “psychosocial crisis,” which arises and demands resolution before the next stage
can be satisfactorily negotiated (Erikson, 1963, 1968; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005).
Each of these stages is distinguished by a psychosocial crisis that must be
resolved in order to reach the next stage. For example, the foundation of a house is
essential to the first floor, which in turn must be structurally sound to support and the
second story, and so on. Erikson’s Eight Stages of Development are as follows: 1)
Basic trust versus basic mistrust; 2) Autonomy versus shame; 3) Initiative versus
guilt; 4) Industry versus inferiority; 5) Identity versus identity diffusion; 6) Intimacy
versus isolation; 7) Generativity versus self-absorption; and 8) Integrity versus
despair. In this study, the researcher will focus on stages five through eight because
Erikson described the first four stages as coming together in childhood. Since this
dissertation is not focused on children those stages are not relevant to this study, the
45
latter four stages are studied because they concentrate on young adults and their
transition into adulthood (Erikson, 1963, 1968; Evans et al., 1998).
Identity versus Identity Diffusion
During the fifth stage of the psychosocial crisis (adolescence, from about 13
or 14 to about 20) the adolescent learns how to answer the question of “Who am I?”
The young person acquires self-certainty as opposed to self-consciousness. He or
she begins to experiment with different and usually constructive roles rather than
adopting a “negative identity.” The young adult actually anticipates achievement,
and achieves, rather than being caught up with feelings of inferiority (Erikson, 1980;
Evans et al., 1998).
This stage is especially important to the concept of safety. Here students
realize who they are for the first time and must cope with the fact that they are not
“invincible.” The reality that they too can be victims of crime is established for the
first time.
Learning Intimacy versus Isolation
In this stage, the successful young adult, for the first time, can experience
true intimacy, the sort of intimacy that makes possible a good marriage or a genuine
and enduring friendship (Erikson, 1959; Evans et al., 1998).
Since the stages Erikson describes occur as a progression, following the
discovery of ones self comes the desire to care about others. Shortly after students
begin college or university they find their own community of friends. In this
46
community students learn to help each other and be safe. In addition students’
decisions regarding safety are informed by the experiences of their close friends.
Learning Generativity versus Self-Absorption
This stage occurs in adulthood, the psychosocial crisis demands generativity,
both in the sense of marriage and parenthood, and in the sense of working
productively and creatively (Erikson, 1959; Evans et al., 1998). Generativity is an
extension of love into the future or a concern for the next generation (Erickson,
1959).
In this stage students begin to care more about other peoples need in the
broader community. They no longer care only about their own friends but rather
their entire campus. Students want to know that their campus at large is safe and that
everyone in it is safe at all times. Here the Clery Act is especially pertinent because
the crime statistics gathered reflect the whole campus.
Integrity versus Despair
Once the other seven “psychosocial crises” have been successfully resolved,
the mature adult develops integrity. He or she works hard, has found a well-defined
role in life, and has developed a self-concept and is happy. If one or more of the
earlier psychosocial crises have not been resolved, life may be viewed with disgust
and despair (Erikson, 1959; Evans et al., 1998).
The final stage in the progression is the peak. Throughout this progression of
stages students improve their understanding of crime and safety and reconcile how it
relates to them. In this final stage students care about crime as a phenomenon rather
47
than just how it relates to their friends or specific campus. Students develop
convictions regarding crime and safety issues in the world around them.
Applications of the Clery Act
The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime
Statistics Act (the Clery Act) holds many purposes in higher education today.
According to Gregory and Janosik, there are seven purposes for the Clery Act. The
first purpose includes, “improving campus crime reporting by forcing colleges and
universities to report campus crime data in a more consistent manner.” The second
purpose includes, “allowing prospective students and their parents to make informed
decisions about the relative safety of institutions to which they are considering
applying for admission.” The third purpose includes, “improving campus safety
programs.” The fourth purpose includes, “improving campus police policies and
procedures.” The fifth purpose includes, “raising student awareness and thus
changing their behavior.” The sixth purpose includes, “eliminating the perceived
hiding of campus crime by institutional officials.” Finally, the seventh purpose
includes, “reducing campus crime,” (Gregory & Janosik, 2003, p. 764).
The ultimate goal behind the act is therefore to help prospective students and
their parents make informed decisions regarding their choice of college or university.
The more they know about what is going on at the given institution, the more likely
they are to make an accurate decision as to what is best for them. The second reason
is to help keep those students, faculty, staff, or others already at the college campuses
knowledgeable regarding the potential risks they are facing while on campus. As a
48
result of this knowledge the campus community will be more conscious of making
informed decisions regarding their behavior. The hope is that as a result of all of this
information, members of the college community will make intelligent choices about
their own safety and thereby reduce the chance of becoming a victim of criminal
activity (Gregory & Janosik, 2002).
The Clery Act’s Impact on Student Affairs Professionals
The Clery Act impacts the entire campus community, not only students. An
early test of the Clery Act was determining which campus departments were
responsible for issues related to students and crime. Various departments on
campuses had many new responsibilities as a result of the new legislation. For
example, campus safety officials became responsible for sustaining the crime
database on campus. However, they did not accomplish this on their own; in order to
successfully fulfill this task they were required to work in partnership with other
departments. Campus safety must work with judicial affairs as well as deans and
vice presidents of student services. This partnership was new and was not in line
with past procedures. This was one of the surprising impacts of the Clery Act, the
need to cooperate between departments and reveal information to one another
(Gregory & Janosik, 2003).
Gregory and Janosik (2003) conducted a study to gather information
regarding the potential collaboration that takes place across departments on college
and university campuses. The study consisted of the members of the Association for
Student Judicial Affairs (ASJA) in which 403 of the 422 members responded. Over
49
50 percent of the respondents answered yes to the question, “Has the passage of the
Clery Act resulted in a closer relationship between the student conduct operation of
your institution and that of the campus police/security operation?” (p. 770).
Therefore the study concluded that an unexpected benefit of the Clery Act is the
increased collaboration between traditionally independent departments on campuses
(Gregory & Janosik).
Is Campus Crime Decreasing?
There is a great deal of disagreement over the question of whether or not the
Clery Act is effective (Janosik, 2002). Regardless of the effectiveness, there have
been many unfortunate national perceptions that institutions of higher education
oftentimes hide crime on their campuses in order to protect themselves (Gehring &
Callaway, 1997). It is clear that colleges and universities may be protecting
themselves in the dual role that they play; they educate the future and are also
businesses, and businesses successfully operate when budgets and fiduciary
responsibilities are a guiding principle. The worry of the student affairs
professionals became how to protect the image of the college or university if they are
required to publish the campus crime statistics. The concern of student affairs
professionals was that if the institution's image were in question, the college or
university would be unable to attract highly competitive and qualified prospective
students (Gehring & Callaway).
Despite all of the worries of student affairs professionals regarding decreased
enrollment that will result if colleges and universities do not meet their annual
50
monetary targets, the question still remains, has the Clery Act reduced campus crime
rates? According to a quantitative research study done by Janosik and Gregory in
which 944 senior campus law enforcement officials who were members of the
International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators (IACLEA)
were surveyed, 70 percent of respondents reported that campus crime rates have
remained relatively constant since the passage of the Clery Act. Fifteen percent of
the campus law enforcement officers indicated that the campus crime has increased
and fifteen percent reported that campus crime has decreased (see table 4) (Gregory
& Janosik, 2003).
Table 4:
Campus Crime Rates Since the Passage of the Clery Act
Response Number Percent
Increased 56 15
Remained the Same 259 70
Decreased 56 15
From: “Clery and Campus Crime Rates” by Gregory & Janosik, 2003, p. 190
In metropolitan areas crime rates have been decreasing over time (Wood,
1999). Therefore the same is true for college and university campuses. However
when members of the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement
Administrators were asked whether or not the decreases in crime on college and
university campuses were a result of the Clery Act, ninety percent of respondents
said no (see table 5) (Gregory & Janosik, 2003).
51
Table 5:
Can Decrease in Crime Rates be Credited to the Clery Act?
Response Number Percent
Yes 37 10
No 334 90
From: “Clery and Campus Crime Rates” by Gregory & Janosik, 2003, p. 190
Reality of the Clery Act
As stated earlier, choosing a postsecondary institution is a major decision for
students and their families. Many people may agree that the issue of campus safety
is a concern to prospective students and their families, but just how many? (see table
6). Despite the fact that the Clery Act is accessible to everyone in the campus
community, only “about 25% of parents and students know of the Act, and fewer
report reading the mandated campus crime report,” (Janosik & Plummer, 2005, p.
116).
Janosik and Gehring (2003) conducted another quantitative study in which
they chose to contact the voting delegates of the National Association of Student
Personnel Administrators (NASPA) and ask them questions regarding student
knowledge of the Clery Act. Janosik and Gehring discovered that “…a very small
proportion of respondents (8%) were actually influenced by the summary data
mandated by the law in selecting the college or university they attend,” (Janosik &
Gehring, 2003, p. 83). The findings of both Janosik and Gehring in 2003 and
Janosik and Plummer in 2005 were consistent concluding that students do not base
52
their decision of attending a college or university on the statistics presented by the
Clery Act regarding crime and safety.
Table 6:
Does the Clery Act Influence Student Enrollment Decisions?
Item Yes No
Number Percent Number Percent
Gender Women 200 9 2080 91
Men 112 7 1462 93
Total 312 8 3542 92
From: “Chi-Squared Results on Awareness of the Clery Act and the Use of
Mandated Reports by Student and Institution Characteristics” by Janosik & Gehring,
2003, p. 85.
Conclusions
The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime
Statistics Act has many purposes in higher education today. Our conclusions
regarding the effectiveness of the Clery Act may differ depending on how we choose
to judge its effectiveness. The Clery Act successfully forces colleges and
universities to report campus crime data in a more consistent manner (Janosik,
2002). It makes it possible for prospective students and their parents to make
informed decisions about the relative safety of institutions that they are considering
applying for admission. It results in improved campus safety programs, and also
improved campus police policies and procedures (Janosik).
In terms of what some of the available research has found regarding raising
student awareness and thereby changing student behavior, eliminating the perceived
hiding of campus crime by institutional officials, and reducing campus crime all
53
together, the results show that the Clery Act may be falling short in these areas.
However, the research on the subject matter is all relatively new and not nearly as
extensive as what is present for some other laws like the Federal Education Right to
Privacy Act (FERPA).
Currently there is a gap that exists regarding the Clery Act and its effects on
student behaviors in colleges and universities. The gap is that there is no mixed
method research determining how student behavior has changed since the inception
of the Clery Act. The value of this study is that it is mixed methods and therefore
includes both a quantitative and qualitative approach to analyzing the student
population. Therefore student affairs professionals will be better able to use the
findings in this study to see how students react to crime and determine the best
methods to use to understand how their behavior changes over time.
In today’s college and university settings, crime is something that cannot be
overlooked and it is important that it be approached proactively rather than passively.
The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime
Statistics Act does, takes proactive measures. The Clery Act was designed to make
colleges and universities more accountable. Whether or not the students, faculty,
staff, and parents use the information provided by the Clery Act is not something that
can be controlled for through the legislation. The goal of the Act is to provide those
on campus with the facts of what crimes are occurring on campus and the hope is
that the more students know about crime and crime prevention; the more likely they
are to make good choices and not become victims.
54
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This chapter gives a description of the procedures that were followed during
the course of the study. As mentioned in Chapter One, the purpose of this study was
to investigate how the Clery Act changed student behaviors on college and university
campuses and what it taught students about how to be safe. In order to achieve this
purpose the researcher was guided by the following research questions:
Research Question 1: How does the Clery Act affect current undergraduate
students? In particular, what do students learn about crime as a result of the
Clery Act and how does that help them to protect themselves.
Research Question 2: How has student behavior changed as a result of the
Clery Act between students’ first and fourth year at the school they attended?
Particularly, does the Clery Act impact and change student behavior over
time?
Student affairs administration and staff from across the United States will use the
knowledge obtained from this study in order to examine how they can improve
safety programs on their college and university campuses.
The methodologies used to understand changes in student behavior with
regard to safety as a result of the Clery Act are discussed in this chapter. First, an
explanation and justification of the mixed methods approach used in this study is
presented. Then, the sample and population, data collection procedures, and the data
55
analysis procedures are explained. Finally, all aspects of the ethical considerations
are addressed.
The Mixed Method Approach
The focus of the study was a two-pronged effort to better understand
students. First, the researcher wanted to determine how the Clery Act affected the
learning and development process of current undergraduate students with regard to
their learning about crime and the consequent measures these students take to protect
themselves. Second, the researcher wanted to determine how the Clery Act impacted
and changed student behaviors over time. Specifically, whether student behavior
changed as a result of the Clery Act between their first and fourth year at their
college or university? Three very different universities in Southern California were
studied in order to find answers to the questions stated above. These universities
were: the University of Southern California (USC), the University of California,
Riverside (UCR), and Pepperdine University (Pepperdine).
Using the Research Questions to guide the study, the research conducted was
a mixed methods approach to data collection. The result was an analysis of data that
used both qualitative and quantitative methods, as both were applied to study
students and the Clery Act. The benefit to combining multiple methods is that the
researcher can overcome bias that comes from single method studies and increases
reliability; this concept is referred to as triangulation, specifically methods
triangulation, (Patton, 2002). Therefore, depending on what is learned through the
data collection process, the changes in student behavior regarding campus safety can
56
be more fully explained through triangulation. Patton maintains that analyzing
inconsistencies in findings from multiple approaches can be very important. These
potential inconsistencies offer deeper insight into the study (Patton, 2002).
Study Design
This study used a mixed methods research design because this approach
amplified the nature of the phenomenon presented (Creswell, 2003).
First, the researcher used surveys to determine the impact of the Clery Act on
student behaviors over time. According to Creswell, a survey design provides a
quantitative description of attitudes of a population by studying a sample of that
population (2003). In this study the population consisted of first through fourth year
traditional university students and the sample was taken from USC, UCR, and
Pepperdine University.
Second, the researcher conducted standardized open-ended interviews with
students who attended the given universities to better understand how the Clery Act
has taught them how to be safe. This approach was qualitative and requires that the
researcher carefully word each question before the interview to insure that each
respondent was asked the same questions, in the same way, and in the same order
from the researcher (Patton, 2002).
Justification of Mixed Method Approach
The researcher chose the mixed method approach for this study in order to
provide a comprehensive view of the Clery Act and how it affected undergraduate
57
students. By using both qualitative and quantitative methods, the researcher
collected data that yielded a broad description of the Clery Act.
Patton (2002) described quantitative and qualitative data using examples
related to still photographs and movies. He paralleled quantitative data to a still
photograph, something that is isolated and motionless, and qualitative data to a
movie, something that is very fluid and constantly changing.
Quantitative research methods are often viewed as being rigid, but in reality
the information yielded has enormous value. Quantitative methods are oftentimes
more efficient than collecting data through qualitative methods. In this study, a
survey was used to collect information from students regarding their opinions about
the Clery Act and was generalizable. The ability to generalize findings makes
quantitative data collection a very attractive choice (Creswell, 2003). On the other
hand quantitative data is not as revealing as qualitative data. Only qualitative data
allowed for individual meetings and connections between the researcher and the
respondent.
Both approaches were fundamental to this study. As a result of using the
mixed method approach, student affairs professionals can gain insight that is
incredibly valuable to truly understanding the effects of the Clery Act on students.
Sample and Population
This research study intended to explore how the Clery Act changed student
behaviors on college and university campuses and what it taught students about how
to be safe. To do this, surveys and interviews were conducted at three major
58
Southern California Universities thereby allowing the researcher to find answer to
the two research questions that guide this study.
The first institution, University of Southern California (USC), is a very large,
4-year, private institution of higher education in Los Angeles, California. USC was
selected in this study for three reasons. First, USC is a very large institution attended
by approximately 33,000 students. Such a large institution is much like a small city
that is faced with many issues including the prevalence of crime on campus. Second,
USC is a diverse institution, welcoming men and women of every race, creed, and
background. The student population at USC is similar to that of some very large
institutions around the nation, thus making it possible for student affairs
professionals at other very large institutions to implement lessons learned from this
study with regard to crime and safety into practice on their own campuses. Third,
USC is a private university, unaffected by political control. The Clery Act is federal
legislation that must be abided by all colleges and universities regardless of their
political state however; private institutions may decide to evoke even more strict
standards when it comes to crime because they have the resources to do so. In the
example of USC, the Department of Public Safety boasts one of the largest law
enforcement agencies in the United States (University of Southern California, 2006).
The second institution, the University of California, Riverside (UCR), is a
large, 4-year, public institution of higher education. UCR is attended by
approximately 16,000 students and is an incredibly diverse institution. In 2007, US
News and World Report ranked UCR as third in the nation in ethnic diversity.
59
(University of California, Riverside, 2007). The ethnically diverse population of
students at UCR is important in determining whether or not ethnicity and student
behaviors toward crime awareness correlate. UCR differs from USC in that it is a
public institution. Aside from the standard set by the federal government with
regard to crime awareness and statistics public institutions such as the University of
California must abide by certain standards set forth by the state due to funding
restrictions.
The third institution, Pepperdine University (Pepperdine), is a medium-sized,
4-year, private institution of higher education in Malibu, California. Pepperdine is
attended by approximately 8,000 students and therefore contrasts USC and UCR in
size. Examining a university that is smaller in size is especially interesting in this
study because it allows the researcher to determine if size has an effect on student
affairs professionals’ ability to keep students safe. In addition, approximately 62%
of Pepperdine students are Caucasian, indicating that it is not very ethnically diverse.
The fact that Pepperdine is not very ethnically diverse is also important in
determining whether or not ethnicity and student behaviors toward crime awareness
compare. In addition, most colleges and universities around the United States are not
very ethnically diverse and therefore including this institution in the study allows for
a more comprehensive nation-wide comparison. Pepperdine is a Christian university
which also broadens the scope of this study to include institutions around the country
that are affiliated with a church. Pepperdine, like USC, is a private institution and
therefore, is often unaffected by political control in the same way as a public
60
institution because of the issues of funding. Private institutions are not supported by
tax payers the way public institutions are, giving them more freedom. This does not
negate the fact that private institutions are greatly influenced by their own Boards of
Regents or Offices of the President (Pepperdine University, 2007).
The sampling strategy used in this study was purposeful sampling and
utilized a mixed methods approach. Purposeful sampling was selected because it
emphasized an in-depth understanding of the subject (Patton, 2003). Quantitative
data was acquired through surveys while qualitative data was acquired though
interviews. Information gathered included questions that helped the researcher
identify how students' knowledge regarding crime changes over time.
The units of analysis for this study were individual people, the students at
USC, UCR, and Pepperdine University. According to Patton, “The primary focus of
data collections is on what is happening to individuals in a setting and how
individuals are affected by the setting,” (Patton, 2002, p. 228). Therefore, in this
case the focus of data collection is on how students at USC, UCR, and Pepperdine
changed their behaviors over time and what the Clery Act taught them about how to
be safe. The data collected was very representative and therefore it is assumed that
the results are applicable to traditional students across the country. The universities
chosen for this study were purposefully selected. The selection factors include: size
of the institution, whether it was public or private in nature, the level of diversity at
the institution, and whether or not it had an affiliation with a church. As stated
61
earlier, the two research methods chosen were also done purposefully to create a
triangulated and more reliable research design.
Data Collection Procedures
This study used both surveys and interviews and required that the survey data
was collected prior to the interview data. As stated in Chapter One, the researcher
identified students to participate in study with the assistance of the student affairs
departments on the given campuses. The researcher asked student affairs staff on
each campus to select students to participate in this study. The only criterion of the
researcher was that those participating must be traditional students. Traditional
students were defined as those students between the ages of 18 to 23 who are first-
time, full-time students attending college or university directly out of high school.
The researcher worked with the student affairs departments on the campuses to send
an e-mail to students inviting them to participate in the study (see Appendix E). In
the e-mail there was a link to the researcher online survey; students were able to
complete the survey and also had the opportunity to sign up to participate in the
interview.
Survey
The survey was administered online through surveymonkey.com and was
therefore easily accessible to students. The researcher worked with a few key
student affairs professionals to help in this process of distributing the survey to
students via electronic mail. At each university four different groups of students
were surveyed to determine how their behaviors changed over time (see Appendix
62
G). These groups were composed of first-year through fourth-year traditional
students. There were 1000 surveys sent to students at each university and more than
160 surveys were completed at each institution resulting in a grand total of 518
completed surveys at the three universities.
No incentives were offered to complete the survey, which may be the reason
why there was a lack of responses from the students. The last question on the survey
asked students who were interested to include their e-mail address in the space
provided in order to allow the researcher to contact them for an interview. Since the
researcher invited everyone who filled out a survey to participate in the interview
process she was able to purposefully select a diverse group of students to interview.
Interview
The data collection process continued with standardized open-ended
interviews of the traditional students at the three universities (see Appendix H). Four
different groups of students were interviewed at each university to determine how
their behaviors changed over time. These groups were composed of first-year
through fourth-year traditional students. The total number of interviews conducted
at each university ranged between 11 and 13 students resulting in a grand total of 36
interviews being conducted by the researcher. Interviews were centered on the
changes that the students experienced and the knowledge they gained as a result of
their exposure to the Clery Act. These interviews also determined how students’
knowledge of policies, their attitudes, and their behaviors changed over time. Each
interview result differed slightly depending upon what year the students were in their
63
academic progress (first through fourth). Each interview lasted approximately 30-50
minutes and was be tape-recorded. The interviews were fully transcribed.
Participants
To understand the effects of the Clery Act on college student behaviors the
researcher targeted traditional college students at three major universities to
participate in the study. A total of 518 students were surveyed at the three
universities and 36 were interviewed for the study.
Participants That Completed Surveys
Of the 518 students who were surveyed at the University of Southern
California, the University of California, Riverside, and Pepperdine University based
on those who responded, 59 percent of the respondents were female while 41 percent
were male (see Table 7). In terms of ethnicity, the majority of students were
White/Caucasian followed by Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic, Black/African
American, Other, and Native American (see Table 8). The overwhelming majority
of students, 70 percent, grew up in suburban communities while the remaining 30
percent grew up in either urban or rural communities (see Table 9). With regard to
where the students had lived after arriving on campus, the greater number of students
had lived in the residence halls or campus housing (see Table 10). Students’ years in
terms of fulfilling their degrees were very closely represented with the very slight
majority being in their fourth year, followed by those in their first year, followed by
second and third year students (see Table 11). As far as the students’ ages, the
majority of students surveyed were 19 years old (see Table 12). In reference to the
64
students’ cumulative grade point averages, most of the students ranged between
either 3.01 to 3.25 or 3.51 to 3.75 (see Table 13). Finally, concerning their parents’
income, the majority of the parents’ incomes were more than 100,000 dollars while
only about 11 percent were less than 30,000 dollars (see Table 14).
Table 7:
Gender of Students by Numbers and Average Given in Percentages
USC UCR Pepperdine Total Average (%)
Male 62 65 77 204 40.7
Female 123 96 78 297 59.3
Table 8:
Ethnicity of Students by Numbers and Average Given in Percentages
USC UCR Pepperdine Total Average (%)
Asian/Pacific
Islander
30 86 22 138 27.7
Black/African
American
8 7 19 34 6.8
Hispanic 22 27 13 62 12.4
Native American 0 1 1 2 0.4
White/Caucasian 116 28 92 236 47.3
Other 9 10 8 27 5.4
Table 9:
Community Students Grew Up In by Numbers and Average Given in Percentages
USC UCR Pepperdine Total Average (%)
Rural 13 11 14 38 7.6
Suburban 136 105 108 349 69.5
Urban 37 44 34 115 22.9
Table 10:
Where Students Live by Numbers and Average Given in Percentages
USC UCR Pepperdine Total Average (%)
Residence Halls 122 122 103 347 69.4
Campus Housing 96 29 78 203 40.6
Greek Housing 24 3 0 27 5.4
Private Apartment 73 66 17 156 31.2
Commuter 18 43 16 77 15.4
65
Table 11:
Year of Students in Terms of Fulfilling their Degree by Numbers and Average Given
in Percentages
USC UCR Pepperdine Total Average (%)
First 45 33 54 132 26.4
Second 51 31 37 119 23.8
Third 32 39 39 110 22.0
Fourth 56 58 26 140 27.9
Table 12:
Age of Students by Numbers and Average Given in Percentages
USC UCR Pepperdine Total Average (%)
18 35 25 28 88 17.6
19 51 29 50 130 26.0
20 35 37 40 112 22.4
21 41 29 23 93 18.6
22 21 20 15 56 11.2
23 2 19 0 21 4.2
Table 13:
Cumulative Grade Point Average of Students by Numbers and Average Given in
Percentages
USC UCR Pepperdine Total Average (%)
Less than 2.0 1 7 2 10 2.0
2.01-2.25 2 9 6 17 3.4
2.26-2.50 1 23 9 33 6.6
2.51-2.75 5 19 6 30 6.0
2.76-3.00 14 32 23 69 13.8
3.01-3.25 27 27 37 91 18.2
3.26-3.50 36 13 33 82 16.4
3.51-3.75 52 17 22 91 18.2
3.76-4.00 44 14 18 76 15.2
Table 14:
Parental Income by Numbers and Average Given in Percentages
($) USC UCR Pepperdine Total Average (%)
Less than 30,000 10 31 9 50 10.6
30,001-50,000 16 30 22 68 14.4
50,001-70,000 25 20 20 86 18.1
70,001-100,000 29 37 20 86 18.1
More than 100,000 96 34 75 205 43.3
66
Respondents that Participated in Interviews
Of the 36 students who were interviewed at the three institutions, 12 students
were interviewed at the University of Southern California, 13 students were
interviewed at the University of California, Riverside, and 11 students were
interviewed at Pepperdine University. Based on those who responded, 64 percent of
the respondents were female while 36 percent were male (see Table 15). In terms of
ethnicity, the majority of students were White/Caucasian followed by Asian/Pacific
Islander, Hispanic, and Black/African American (see Table 16). The overwhelming
majority of students, 78 percent, grew up in suburban communities while the
remaining 22 percent grew up in either urban or rural communities (see Table 17).
With regard to where the students had lived after arriving on campus, the greater
number of students had lived in the residence halls or campus housing (see Table
18). As far as year students were in fulfilling their degrees, the majority of students
were in their third or fourth years, followed by those in their second year, followed
by their first year (see Table 19). As far as the students’ ages, the majority of
students surveyed were 21 years old (see Table 20). In reference to the students’
cumulative grade point averages, most of the students ranged between 2.76 to 3.00
(see Table 21). Finally, concerning their parents’ income, the majority of the
students responded by saying “I don’t know” followed closely by those whose
parents’ incomes were more than 100,000 dollars (see Table 22).
67
Table 15:
Gender of Students Interviewed by Numbers and Average Given in Percentages
USC UCR Pepperdine Total Average (%)
Male 3 6 4 13 36.1
Female 9 7 7 23 63.9
Table 16:
Ethnicity of Students Interview by Numbers and Average Given in Percentages
USC UCR Pepperdine Total Average (%)
Asian/Pacific
Islander
2 4 3 9 25.0
Black/African
American
0 3 2 5 13.9
Hispanic 4 3 1 8 22.2
Native American 0 0 0 0 0
White/Caucasian 6 3 5 14 38.9
Other 0 0 0 0 0
Table 17:
Community Students Interviewed Grew Up In by Numbers and Average Given in
Percentages
USC UCR Pepperdine Total Average (%)
Rural 1 0 1 2 5.5
Suburban 9 10 9 28 77.8
Urban 2 3 1 6 16.7
Table 18:
Places Students Interviewed Have Lived by Numbers and Average Given in
Percentages
USC UCR Pepperdine Total Average (%)
Residence Halls 12 13 11 36 55.4
Campus Housing 8 2 4 14 21.5
Greek Housing 3 0 0 3 4.6
Private Apartment 4 7 1 12 18.5
Commuter 0 0 0 0 0
68
Table 19:
Year of Students Interviewed in Terms of Fulfilling their Degree by Numbers and
Average Given in Percentages
USC UCR Pepperdine Total Average (%)
First 0 4 3 7 19.4
Second 5 2 2 9 25.0
Third 4 3 3 10 27.8
Fourth 3 4 3 10 27.8
Table 20:
Age of Students Interviewed by Numbers and Average Given in Percentages
USC UCR Pepperdine Total Average (%)
18 0 2 3 5 13.9
19 4 3 1 8 22.2
20 2 3 3 8 22.2
21 4 4 3 11 30.6
22 2 1 1 4 11.1
23 0 0 0 0 0
Table 21:
Cumulative Grade Point Average of Students Interviewed by Numbers and Average
Given in Percentages
USC UCR Pepperdine Total Average (%)
Less than 2.0 0 1 1 2 5.5
2.01-2.25 0 0 0 0 0
2.26-2.50 0 1 1 2 5.5
2.51-2.75 0 3 1 4 11.1
2.76-3.00 0 5 4 9 25.0
3.01-3.25 2 1 0 3 8.4
3.26-3.50 2 1 3 6 16.7
3.51-3.75 5 1 0 6 16.7
3.76-4.00 3 0 1 4 11.1
69
Table 22:
Parental Income of Students Interviewed by Numbers and Average Given in
Percentages
($) USC UCR Pepperdine Total Average (%)
Less than 30,000 2 1 2 5 13.9
30,001-50,000 0 1 1 2 5.6
50,001-70,000 0 2 1 3 8.3
70,001-100,000 2 0 1 3 8.3
More than 100,000 7 2 2 11 30.6
“I Don’t Know” 1 7 4 12 33.3
University of Southern California
At the University of Southern California (USC) 192 students responded to the
researcher’s survey. Of those 192 students who completed the survey, answering the
demographic questions was voluntary and therefore some students did not respond to
them. In terms of gender of the students who responded to the survey at USC, 123
were female and 62 were male while seven students skipped the question. Of the
192 students who completed the survey, 185 of them voluntarily identified their
ethnicities in the following manner: 116 White/Caucasian, 30 Asian/Pacific
Islander, 22 Hispanic, 9 other, 8 Black/African American, and 0 Native American.
When the surveyed students at USC were asked to classify the community in which
they grew up, 136 responded as suburban, 37 responded as urban, 13 responded as
rural and 7 students skipped the question. Students at USC identified the places that
they have lived while attending the university in the following manner: 122 lived in
the residence halls, 96 campus housing, 24 Greek housing, 73 private apartments,
and 18 students who have been commuters at one point. Students were able to
70
choose more than one answer to this question because many of them have lived in
more than one place since enrolling in the university. When asked what year they are
in terms of completing their degrees of the 192 students, 184 USC students
responded; 45 were in their first year, 51 were in their second year, 32 were in their
third year, and 56 were in their fourth year. When asked their age as of January
2007, 185 students at USC responded and 7 skipped the question; 35 students
responded that they were 18, 51 students responded that they were 19, 35 students
responded that they were 20, 41 students responded that they were 21, 21 students
responded that they were 22, and 2 students responded that they were 23. In terms of
their cumulative grade point average out of 192 students who completed surveys at
USC, 182 students responded in the following manner: 1 student responded as
earning less than a 2.0, 2 students responded as being in the range of 2.01-2.25, 1
student responded as being in the range of 2.26-2.50, 5 students responded as being
in the range of 2.51-2.75, 14 students responded as being in the range of 2.76-3.00,
27 students responded as being in the range of 3.01-3.25, 36 students responded as
being in the range of 3.26-3.50, 52 students responded as being in the range of 3.51-
3.75, and 44 students responded as being in the range of 3.76-4.00. Finally, when
asked their parents income 176 students voluntarily answered this question while 16
students skipped the question. 10 students responded that their parents’ income is
less than 30,000 dollars, 16 students responded that their parents’ income is between
30,001-50,000 dollars, 25 students responded that their parents’ income is between
50,001-70,000 dollars, 29 students responded that their parents’ income is between
71
70,001-100,000 dollars, and 96 students responded their parents’ income is more
than 100,001.
12 students at USC were chosen to participate in the researcher’s interview.
Of those 12 students 9 were female and 3 were male. All 12 participants voluntarily
responded to all demographic questions. In terms of ethnicity, 6 students identified
themselves as White/Caucasian, 2 identified themselves as Asian/Pacific Islander,
and 4 identified themselves as Hispanic. When the students were asked to classify
the community in which they grew up, 9 responded as suburban, 2 responded as
urban, 1 responded as rural. When asked to identify the places they have lived while
attending the university, 12 students lived in the residence halls, 8 students lived in
campus housing, 3 students lived in Greek housing, and 4 students lived in private
apartments. Students were able to choose more than one answer to this question
because many of them have lived in more than one place since enrolling in the
university. When asked what year they are in terms of completing their degrees the
12 USC students responded in the following manner: 5 were in their second year, 4
were in their third year, and 3 were in their fourth year. When asked their age as of
January 2007, 4 students responded they were 19, 2 students responded that they
were 20, 4 students responded that they were 21, and 2 students responded that they
were 22. In terms of their cumulative grade point average the 12 USC students
responded as follows: 2 students responded as being in the range of 3.01-3.25, 2
students responded as being in the range of 3.26-3.50, 5 students responded as being
in the range of 3.51-3.75, and 3 students responded as being in the range of 3.76-
72
4.00. Finally, when asked their parents income 1 USC student answered that they
did not know, 2 USC students responded that their parents’ income is less than
30,000 dollars, 2 USC students responded that their parents’ income is between
70,001-100,000 dollars, and 7 USC students responded their parents’ income is more
than 100,001.
University of California, Riverside
At the University of California, Riverside (UCR) 162 students responded to
the researcher’s survey. Of those 162 students who completed the survey, answering
the demographic questions was voluntary and therefore 96 responded that they were
female and 65 responded that they were male while 1 student skipped this question.
Of the 162 students who completed the survey, 159 of them voluntarily identified
their ethnicities in the following manner: 86 Asian/Pacific Islander, 28
White/Caucasian, 27 Hispanic, 10 other, 7 Black/African American, and 1 Native
American. When the surveyed students at UCR were asked to classify the
community in which they grew up, 105 responded as suburban, 44 responded as
urban, 11 responded as rural and two students skipped the question. Students at
UCR identified the places that they have lived while attending the university in the
following manner: 122 lived in the residence halls, 29 campus housing, 3 Greek
housing, 66 private apartments, and 43 students who have been commuters at one
point. Students were able to choose more than one answer to this question because
many of them have lived in more than one place since enrolling in the university.
When asked what year they are in terms of completing their degrees of the 162
73
students, 161 UCR students responded; 33 were in their first year, 31 were in their
second year, 39 were in their third year, and 58 were in their fourth year. When
asked their age as of January 2007, 159 students at USC responded and 3 skipped the
question; 25 students responded that they were 18, 29 students responded that they
were 19, 37 students responded that they were 20, 29 students responded that they
were 21, 20 students responded that they were 22, and 19 students responded that
they were 23. In terms of their cumulative grade point average out of 162 students
who completed surveys at UCR, 161 students responded in the following manner: 7
student responded as earning less than a 2.0, 9 students responded as being in the
range of 2.01-2.25, 23 student responded as being in the range of 2.26-2.50, 19
students responded as being in the range of 2.51-2.75, 32 students responded as
being in the range of 2.76-3.0, 27 students responded as being in the range of 3.01-
3.25, 13 students responded as being in the range of 3.26-3.50, 17 students
responded as being in the range of 3.51-3.75, and 14 students responded as being in
the range of 3.76-4.00. Finally, when asked their parents income 152 students
voluntarily answered this question while 10 students skipped the question. 31
students responded that their parents’ income is less than 30,000 dollars, 30 students
responded that their parents’ income is between 30,001-50,000 dollars, 20 students
responded that their parents’ income is between 50,001-70,000 dollars, 37 students
responded that their parents’ income is between 70,001-100,000 dollars, and 34
students responded their parents’ income is more than 100,001.
74
13 students at UCR were chosen to participate in the researcher’s interview.
Of those 13 students 7 were female and 6 were male. All 13 participants voluntarily
responded to all demographic questions. In terms of ethnicity, 4 students identified
themselves as Asian/Pacific Islander, 3 students identified themselves as
White/Caucasian, 3 students identified themselves as Black/African American, and 3
students identified themselves as Hispanic. When the students were asked to classify
the community in which they grew up, 10 responded as suburban and 3 responded as
urban. When asked to identify the places they have lived while attending the
university, 13 students lived in the residence halls, 2 students lived in campus
housing, and 7 students lived in private apartments. Students were able to choose
more than one answer to this question because many of them have lived in more than
one place since enrolling in the university. When asked what year they are in terms
of completing their degrees the 13 UCR students responded in the following manner:
4 were in their first year, 2 were in their second year, 3 were in their third year, and 4
were in their fourth year. When asked their age as of January 2007, 2 students
responded they were 18, 3 students responded they were 19, 3 students responded
that they were 20, 4 students responded that they were 21, and 1 student responded
as being 22. In terms of their cumulative grade point average the 13 UCR students
responded as follows: 1 student responded that they earned than a 2.0, 1 student
responded as being in the range of 2.26-2.5, 3 student responded as being in the
range of 2.51-2.75, 5 students responded as being in the range of 2.76-3.0, 1 student
responded as being in the range of 3.01-3.25, 1 student responded as being in the
75
range of 3.26-3.50, and 1 students responded as being in the range of 3.51-3.75.
When asked their parents’ income 7 UCR students answered that they did not know,
1 UCR students responded that their parents’ income is less than 30,000 dollars, 1
UCR students responded that their parents’ income is between 30,001-50,000
dollars, 2 UCR students responded that their parents’ income is between 50,001 and
70,000 dollars, and 2 UCR students responded their parents’ income is more than
100,001.
Pepperdine University
At Pepperdine University (Pepperdine) 164 students responded to the
researcher’s survey. Of those 164 students who completed the survey, answering the
demographic questions was voluntary and therefore 78 responded that they were
female and 77 responded that they were male while 9 students skipped this question.
Of the 164 students who completed the survey, 155 of them voluntarily identified
their ethnicities in the following manner: 92 White/Caucasian, 22 Asian/Pacific
Islander, 13 Hispanic, 8 other, 19 Black/African American, and 1 Native American.
When the surveyed students at Pepperdine were asked to classify the community in
which they grew up, 108 responded as suburban, 34 responded as urban, 14
responded as rural and 8 students skipped the question. Students at Pepperdine
identified the places that they have lived while attending the university in the
following manner: 103 lived in the residence halls, 78 campus housing, 17 private
apartments, and 16 students who have been commuters at one point. Students were
able to choose more than one answer to this question because many of them have
76
lived in more than one place since enrolling in the university. When asked what year
they are in terms of completing their degrees of the 164 students, 156 Pepperdine
students responded; 54 were in their first year, 37 were in their second year, 39 were
in their third year, and 26 were in their fourth year. When asked their age as of
January 2007, 156 students at Pepperdine responded and 8 skipped the question; 28
students responded that they were 18, 50 students responded that they were 19, 40
students responded that they were 20, 23 students responded that they were 21, and
15 students responded that they were 22. In terms of their cumulative grade point
average out of 164 students who completed surveys at Pepperdine, 156 students
responded in the following manner: 2 students responded as earning less than a 2.0, 6
students responded as being in the range of 2.01-2.25, 9 student responded as being
in the range of 2.26-2.50, 6 students responded as being in the range of 2.51-2.75, 23
students responded as being in the range of 2.76-3.00, 37 students responded as
being in the range of 3.01-3.25, 33 students responded as being in the range of 3.26-
3.50, 22 students responded as being in the range of 3.51-3.75, and 18 students
responded as being in the range of 3.76-4.00. Finally, when asked their parents
income 146 students voluntarily answered this question while 18 students skipped
the question. 9 students responded that their parents’ income is less than 30,000
dollars, 22 students responded that their parents’ income is between 30,001-50,000
dollars, 20 students responded that their parents’ income is between 50,001-70,000
dollars, 20 students responded that their parents’ income is between 70,001-100,000
dollars, and 75 students responded their parents’ income is more than 100,001.
77
11 students at Pepperdine were chosen to participate in the researcher’s
interview. Of those 11 students 7 were female and 4 were male. All 11 participants
voluntarily responded to all demographic questions. In terms of ethnicity, 5 students
identified themselves as White/Caucasian, 3 identified themselves as Asian/Pacific
Islander, 1 identified as Hispanic, and 2 identified themselves as Black/African
American. When the students were asked to classify the community in which they
grew up, 9 responded as suburban, 1 responded as urban, 1 responded as rural.
When asked to identify the places they have lived while attending the university, 11
students lived in the residence halls, 4 students lived in campus housing, and 1
student lived in private apartments. Students were able to choose more than one
answer to this question because many of them have lived in more than one place
since enrolling in the university. When asked what year they are in terms of
completing their degrees the 11 Pepperdine students responded in the following
manner: 3 were in their first year, 2 were in their second year, 3 were in their third
year, and 3 were in their fourth year. When asked their age as of January 2007, 3
students responded they were 18, 1 student responded as being 19, 3 students
responded that they were 20, 3 students responded that they were 21, and 1 student
responded as being 22. In terms of their cumulative grade point average the 11
Pepperdine students responded as follows: 1 student responded that they earned less
than 2.0, 1 student responded as being in the range of 2.26-2.50, 1 student responded
as being in the range of 2.51-2.75, 4 students responded as being in the range of
2.76-3.0, 3 students responded as being in the range of 3.26-3.5, and 1 student
78
responded as being in the range of 3.76-4.00. Finally, when asked their parents
income 4 Pepperdine students answered that they did not know, 2 Pepperdine
students responded that their parents’ income is less than 30,000 dollars, 1
Pepperdine student responded that their parents’ income is between 30,001-50,000, 1
Pepperdine student responded that their parents’ income is between 50,001-70,000, 1
Pepperdine student responded that their parents’ income is between 70,001-100,000
dollars, and 2 Pepperdine students responded their parents’ income is more than
100,001.
Data Analysis Procedures
After the collection of the data was completed, the responses were
transcribed and coded. Data was analyzed by coding transcribed interviews and
surveys. The researcher coded the data according to the general research questions
and the framework guiding the study. The researcher also looked for themes
throughout the process. Next the researcher organized the coding that was developed
and focused the questions even more in order to find themes. The online program,
surveymonkey.com, was used to code and organize the survey data. Data was also
organized into tables, charts, and figures in order to help visualize the findings.
Ethical Considerations
Great care was taken to ensure anonymity of respondents and their
respective universities. Consent was obtained from all participants, following the
approval of the survey protocols by the University of Southern California’s
Institutional Review Board (IRB). Since participation was completely voluntary,
79
participants understood that they were free to withdraw from the study and not offer
their insight and help at any time.
In addition the University of Southern California’s procedures for
conducting ethical research were followed. This means that all participants’
identities were coded. This coding was done in a way to ensure that it is virtually
impossible to trace any information back to the given participant.
Validity of and Confidence in Findings
Validity is used to determine whether the findings from a study are accurate
from the standpoint of the researcher, the participant, or the reader (Creswell &
Miller, 2000, as cited in Creswell, 2003). To check the accuracy of the findings in
this study, triangulation was used. In order to triangulate the data, the researcher had
done two things: the researcher conducted 36 one-on-one interviews at the three
universities and got back more than 160 completed surveys from students at each of
the universities. These methods used to gather multiple perspectives regarding the
question produced many sources of data that further justify the studies outcomes.
Researcher’s Subjectivity
My intent in this study was to provide a bias-free examination of how
student behaviors “change” over time as a direct or indirect result of the Clery Act.
As a student and instructor at a university my interests lie in uncovering how the
university system is positively and negatively effecting students with regard to
increased awareness of campus crime that has been brought about by the Clery Act.
80
During the study, I tried to be aware of any potential biases resulting from my own
background.
Summary
In this chapter, I have explained the methodology for data collection and
analysis used in this study. The mixed methods design helped to examine the data
that was collected from the interviews and surveys conducted by the researcher. In
the next chapter I present my research findings, followed by acceptable
recommendations based on current trends, best practices, and survey and interview
data.
81
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS
Introduction
Findings from the data gathered on the study regarding the effects of the
Clery Act on the behaviors of college students are presented in this chapter.
Quantitative data in the form of surveys were obtained from traditional
students at the University of Southern California (USC), the University of California
Riverside (UCR), and Pepperdine University. Survey data gathered from 518
students was examined by the researcher.
Qualitative data was obtained through individual, tape recorded interviews at
the three universities. Individual interviews of the students at USC, UCR, and
Pepperdine occurred during the months of December of 2006, and January,
February, and March of 2007. The individual interviews were all conducted in
person at each university. Interview data collected from 36 students was examined
by the researcher.
The following research questions were used to analyze information related to
students and the Clery Act. More specifically, the research questions addressed what
the Clery Act taught students about how to be safe and how the Clery Act changed
student behaviors on college and university campuses.
Research Question 1: How does the Clery Act affect current undergraduate
students? In particular, what do students learn about crime as a result of the
Clery Act and how does that help them protect themselves?
82
Research Question 2: How has student behavior changed as a result of the
Clery Act between students’ first and fourth year at the school they attended?
Particularly, does the Clery Act impact and change student behavior over
time?
In this chapter the researcher will answer the research questions. Data
obtained through surveys and interviews were used to address each question.
Although the participants were surveyed and interviewed at different institutions,
many of their perspectives were consistent at all three universities while some
perspectives were different. Regardless, all perspectives were useful in helping the
researcher better understand the effects of the Clery Act on college student
behaviors.
Research Question One: How does the Clery Act affect current undergraduate
students? In particular, what do students learn about crime as a result of the Clery
Act and how does that help them protect themselves?
To answer the question regarding how the Clery Act affects current
undergraduate students, what students learn about crime as a result of the Clery Act,
and how their knowledge helps them to protect themselves, survey and interview
data were collected. Using surveymonkey.com, surveys were sent to students at the
three institutions, USC, UCR, and Pepperdine, and more than 160 students at each
institution responded. In addition the researcher conducted approximately 12 face-
to-face interviews at each institution with different students.
83
Undergraduate Students’ Knowledge of the Clery Act
The question of how much students know about the Clery Act is vital to
understanding how the Clery Act affects undergraduate students. It may be the case
that if students know a lot about the Clery Act itself, it has a large impact on them
and if they know nothing about it, the legislation has little or no affect on them.
Through both the survey and the interviews, the researcher began by asking each
student the question, “What or how much do you know about the Clery Act?” At
each institution the survey data overwhelmingly revealed that the students had no
knowledge of the Clery Act. Figure 1 depicts the survey results of 511 students
attending USC, UCR, and Pepperdine University.
How Much Knowledge Students Have About the
Clery Act
458
29
1 1 1 1
2
0
100
200
300
400
500
none a little some somew hat
know ledgeable
a lot
Student Knowledge
Number of Students
Figure 1. Details the amount of knowledge students have about the Clery Act the
three institutions. Respondents could select only one of the five available choices for
student knowledge.
84
More specifically, at USC, of the 188 students responding to the survey
question, 161 or 85.6% of the students reported that they had “no” knowledge about
the Clery Act while 1 student responded that they had “a lot” of knowledge about the
Clery Act. When the 12 students participating in the interview were asked this same
question all 12 of them or 100% responded by stating, “I don’t know anything about
the Clery Act.”
The UCR data was consistent with what was found at USC. Of the 161
students responding to the survey question, 148 or 91.9% of the students reported
that they had “no” knowledge about the Clery Act while 1 student responded that
they had “a lot” of knowledge about the Clery Act. When the 13 students
participating in the interview were asked this same question all 13 of them or 100%
responded by stating, “I don’t know anything about the Clery Act.”
At Pepperdine the results to this question were consistent with USC and
UCR. Of the 163 students responding to the survey question, 150 or 92% of the
students reported that they had “no” knowledge about the Clery Act and 0 students
responded that they had “a lot” of knowledge about the Clery Act. When the 11
students participating in the interviews were asked this same question all 11 of them
or 100% responded by stating, “I don’t know anything about the Clery Act.”
Another question the students were asked that gives a great deal of insight as
to the amount of knowledge undergraduate students have about the Clery Act is
whether they researched their institution’s annual report on crime before making
their decision regarding where to go to college. This is an indicator of student
85
knowledge of the Clery Act because the reporting of campus crime statistics and
making them available to all current and perspective students, faculty, and staff, at
any university is the most direct result of the Clery Act legislation. Of the 511
students who participated in the survey, the overwhelming majority of students
responded by stating “no” they did not research any institutions annual report of
crime before making their decision regarding where to go to college (see Table 23).
Table 23:
Looking Up Crime Reports of Universities by Numbers and Average Given in
Percentages
USC UCR Pepperdine Total Average (%)
Yes 29 20 24 73 14.3
No 159 141 138 438 85.7
At USC, of the 188 students responding to this question 159 or 84.6% stated
that they did not study any institutional crime statistics before deciding where to go
to college. At UCR, of the 161 students responding to this question 141 or 87.6%
stated that they did not study any institutional crime statistics before deciding where
to go to college. Moreover, at Pepperdine, of the 163 students responding to this
question 138 or 84.7% stated that they did not study any institutional crime statistics
before deciding where to go to college.
Based on the data, the majority of students do not have any knowledge about
the Clery Act and did not analyze institutional crime reports when making a decision
regarding where to go to college. The reason the students did not look up
institutional crime reports may be because they did not know such data was available
86
or they did not consider crime statistics to be an important factor when it came to
choosing a university. The latter option will be explored further in the following
section.
Important Factors to Students in Choosing a University
What are the deciding factors for the students to attend a given university?
The students at USC, UCR, and Pepperdine were asked in the survey if their
university's crime statistics affected their decision to attend. The majority of the 511
responding students revealed that crime statistics did not affect their decision to
attend (see Table 24). Given these results, it may be true that even if students did
know that as a result of the Clery Act they have the ability to look up college and
university crime statistics; it does not matter because crime statistics do not affect
their decisions with regard to attending a university.
Table 24:
Crime Statistic Effects on Students Decision to Attend University by Numbers and
Average Given in Percentages
USC UCR Pepperdine Total Average (%)
Yes 18 23 35 76 14.9
No 170 138 127 435 85.1
At USC, of the 188 students responding to the question 170 or 90.4 % stated
that the university’s crime statistics did not affect their decision to attend. At UCR,
of the 161 students responding to the question 138 or 85.7 % stated that the
university’s crime statistics did not affect their decision to attend. Also, at
87
Pepperdine, of the 163 students responding to the question 127 or 77.9% stated that
the university’s crime statistics did not affect their decision to attend.
Due to the fact that according to the survey data, crime statistics on the
campuses were not a deterrent for students, in the interview students were asked
what factors did make them decide to attend their university and whether or not
crime statistics were a part of their decision-making process. Again, the results
followed the same pattern. Crime statistics and the Clery Act had little or no bearing
on the students’ decision-making process.
When the 12 students interviewed at USC were asked why they decided to
attend this institution, the students’ responses fell into four areas or themes: 1) they
loved the campus/it felt right; 2) attraction to the Trojan family; 3) proximity to
home; and 4) the university offered their academic major. None of the students
mentioned crime as a factor under consideration until the researcher asked whether
the university’s crime statistics affected their decision to attend. All of the students
mentioned that crime statistics had no significant impact on their decision making
process. One third year student responded to the question by stating, “No, not really.
I felt like if I had street smarts and use them I would be able to avoid crime, and I
have thus far.” Four students mentioned that crime was an issue for their parents but
not for them. They also mentioned that before coming to the university, it was an
issue that was discussed, and that eventually their parents felt more comfortable.
One fourth year student stated:
88
I think it affected my outside family’s perception of me. That would be one
of the number one things that I would hear when I told people I was going to
USC, ‘Oh my gosh, it’s in the ghetto, oh my gosh, it’s so dangerous, oh my
gosh, are you going to be okay?’ And I never really thought about it. I’d
never heard that stereotype so I didn’t know what to expect and I thought the
campus was really pretty and nice. I didn’t know what people were talking
about being unsafe. And for me personally, it had no effect. For my parents
they knew about it but I think it was addressed somehow in orientation either
through pamphlets or through a seminar. I think my dad went to something
that kind of cleared everything up and told him about safety measures they
have in place to make sure we are safe.
The 13 students interviewed at UCR were asked why they decided to attend
this institution the students’ responses fell into four areas or themes: 1) proximity to
home; 2) offered their academic major; 3) offered best financial package; and 4)
diversity at the university. Again, none of the students mentioned crime until the
researcher asked whether the university’s crime statistics affected their decision to
attend. 12 of the 13 students mentioned that crime statistics had no significant
impact on them. One fourth year student responded to the question by stating, “I
didn’t care about it, I didn’t know UCR, I mean all places have problems of their
own. You know, LA, San Diego, there were a couple of bad issues there. Crime
factors were not on my list of priorities.” One student mentioned that crime was an
issue for her aunt but not for her. She also mentioned that her aunt looked up the
area and the crime rate and decided it was a good choice. Also another fourth year
student mentioned that crime was an issue for her when deciding what university to
attend. When asked about whether or not crime statistics affected her decision to
attend, she said,
89
They did because I was not originally going to consider going here because
of the area. But it wasn’t bad enough for me to ultimately decide not to come
here and the campus did seem pretty safe and there is usually always cops
around and stuff and I feel since my freshman year the Riverside community
as a whole has gotten a lot better. Just walking around you see way more
cops than you used to and you just feel safer I think.
At Pepperdine, the 11 students interviewed asked why they decided to attend
this institution the students’ responses fell into four areas or themes: 1) the location
of the campus; 2) the affiliation with church/Christian based; 3) the size; and 4)
offered their academic major. None of the students mentioned crime until the
researcher asked whether the university’s crime statistics affected their decision to
attend. Every student mentioned that crime statistics had no significant impact on
them. One third year student responded to the question by stating, “It didn’t at all, I
never really paid attention to crime statistics. I wasn’t looking for that.” Another
third year student responded to the questions by stating, “I guess a little bit just
because I had heard it was a really safe campus. So I guess that helped a little bit
too. It’s in a really safe area of town, I guess. So I think that did actually probably
help a little bit but it wasn’t something I consciously thought about.” Two students
mentioned that crime was an issue for their parents but not for them. One fourth year
student stated that his mother did look up the universities crime statistics: “That was
a big factor with my mother. My mom’s extremely strict and I was the first one to
go to college. And Pepperdine was actually ranked, I think, in the Princeton Review
two years ago. I’m not sure if it is this year anymore but at one point was the safest
campus in the United States. My mother showed me the article.”
90
Given the data, the most important factors to students when choosing a
university are the location, the campus proximity to their parents home, and whether
or not their academic majors are offered. Crime statistics were not a factor students
thought of on their own, however when the researcher prompted questions about
crime and whether or not it is important a few students responded that it is, if not to
themselves, then to their families.
What Students Learn About Crime from the Clery Act?
Despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of students participating in
this study did not have any knowledge of the Clery Act, most of the students were
able to connect to the most common way they are made aware of crime and crime
statistics on their campus; through the electronic mail (e-mail) or printed reports they
receive regarding crime incidents that have occurred at their university.
How Crime Reports Make Students Feel
During the interviews, each student was asked how the crime reports they
receive make them feel. In the case of USC, the first method used to inform the
campus community of a crime incident is in the form of e-mail from the institution’s
Department of Public Safety. At UCR, the University of California Police
Department is responsible for publicizing the information regarding crime incidents
and like USC makes this information available through e-mail.
Of the 25 students interviewed at USC and UCR, when asked how the e-
mailed crime incidents made them feel, 10 students stated that the e-mails had no
effect on them, 11 students stated that the e-mails actually made them feel safer, and
91
four students stated that the e-mails made them feel less safe. Their responses fell
under three areas or themes which included: 1) e-mails get redundant/students
receive too many; 2) victims should have known better; and 3) students scan the
crime report for specific information.
At Pepperdine, this process is a bit different from USC and UCR. Students,
faculty, and staff do not receive crime reports in the form of electronic mail (e-mail)
from the institution’s Department of Public Safety. Rather crime incidents are
reported bi-weekly in the University newspaper, The Graphic (see Appendix C). At
Pepperdine, all 11 students interviewed noted that crimes reported are negligible. Of
the 11 students interviewed, 9 stated that they check The Graphic for the Public
Safety Reports and 2 stated that they do not. Most of the students at Pepperdine even
described the crime reports in The Graphic as being comical. One third year student
mentioned:
The reports are kind of embarrassing if you read them. I really doubt there
has been any major crime, but there have been things like people have had
windows broken on their cars. That’s pretty much about it. They’ll put even
the most minor things in the report, like ‘Public Safety found an earring in a
classroom.’ I think one of the funniest things I remember reading was that
they found a bible and returned it to the owner.
In terms of the effect that the reports had on them personally, most
Pepperdine student interviewed reiterated the same feeling regarding the crime
reports published in The Graphic; it didn’t affect them. Another third year student
said, “I guess I don’t really think about it. If I see it in the paper, I just kind of pass
92
by it and don’t really pay much attention to it, I guess, because there’s never been,
from what I’ve seen, a really serious crime.”
E-mails get redundant/students receive too many. Although the students
participating in the interviews at USC and UCR were at different stages of degree
completion and years at the university, the majority indicated that they thought the e-
mails get redundant and that as students, they receive too many of them. One fourth
year USC student explained,
I honestly don’t read them that often. I read maybe 1 out of 10 and
I’m kind of immune to them because we get them so often that I don’t even
think about them really. So I guess they make me feel a little unsafe but I
don’t really think about it all that much.
Another third year USC student mentioned that, “At first I used to read them but then
they just get kind of annoying. They just clutter the mailbox so I kind of delete them
and don’t pay attention to them anymore because I feel like it’s the same thing over
and over, a student getting assaulted by a Black or Hispanic male.” A second year
UCR student repeated the same opinion:
For me personally, the first couple of e-mails I received last year as a first
year student I read and though ‘wow this is going on’ but after a while, after I
kept getting them I just deleted them because it was the same stuff. It was a
burglary or it was an assault, it was all the same stuff happening over and
over again and it didn’t really matter to me anymore. It was like faceless
name that I was reading about and I honestly didn’t really care about and
after a while after I received so many of them I just deleted them. I figure it’s
a good attempt at giving out the information but in terms of the student
population the apathy might be there trying to counter the effectiveness and
productivity of it. Just because after a while you hear it so many times you
don’t really care anymore.
93
The redundancy of the e-mails is especially interesting because students
echoed similar sentiments, that oftentimes the perpetrators of the crime fit a certain
racial and gender profile, a “Black or Hispanic male.” The result of such profiling
will be discussed further in Chapter 5.
Victims should have known better. Almost all of the students interviewed at
USC and UCR also mentioned that the victims should have known better and that is
why this would never happen to them, because they believe that they “know” better.
One second year USC student mentioned:
I feel like a lot of time it’s the students, they could have taken better
precautions. A lot of time it’ll be two a.m. and the person was walking along
in the dark or something. And I feel like the campus offers us Campus
Cruiser and things like that, that we have other ways to protect ourselves, that
most of the times the students didn’t take advantage of.
Another USC student in her fourth year also echoed a very similar sentiment about
reading the e-mails and what the victims should have done differently, “I would read
it and rationalize ‘Oh, this was 11 o’clock at night. They should have known better.
Oh, this was three o’clock in the morning. They should have known better.” In
addition, a third year UCR student also stated, “Some of it is expected; people don’t
realize crimes happen, especially girls (it usually happens to girls who are alone
when it is dark). We are on campus and it’s a public place and at any given time you
see people just roaming around that aren’t part of the campus so you have to expect
some crimes, we ought to be smarter about it.”
Students scan the crime report for specific information. A number of
students also mentioned that they just scan the e-mails they receive for specific
94
information. Some students mentioned that the location of the crime was of
particular interest. By knowing the location of the crime incident, the students
mentioned that they feel like they can better protect themselves from becoming a
victim too. One third year USC student stated:
I open them all and look at the location and what the crime was. The reason I
do that, specifically this semester is because I live on campus now, so I feel a
lot safer. I lived in university housing my entire career at USC but I still like
to know where the crimes happened and try to mentally see if there is a
pattern to a specific area. Just to kind of keep notes so if I’m out there I can
be aware of it.
Another third year student, at UCR, also mentioned the value in scanning the crime
report for certain pieces of information. “I read the first line to see something about
the crime like if it is a shooting or murder or where it happened. I scan for key
words. If I see theft or shooting or robbery I read through the whole thing.”
Therefore with regard to how the crime reports make students feel, based on
the interviews, students had mixed feelings about the e-mails and looked for specific
information to guide the way they handled their feelings about the crime. It seems
that the degree of violence or seriousness of the crime dictates how students react.
Also some students expressed that some of the incidents could have been controlled
for if the victims did not put themselves in the given situations and were not such
“easy targets.”
Describe an Easy Target
At USC, UCR, and Pepperdine, 36 students were interviewed by the
researcher and all 36 were asked to describe an easy target. Their responses fell
95
under three areas or themes: 1) being alone; 2) not paying attention/being careless;
and 3) vulnerable/weak.
Being alone. Student at the three institutions all agreed that being alone is a
great indicator of someone who can easily become a victim of crime. One third year
student at USC described an easy target:
For me, it’s a young woman who walks alone and I also think young guys
who stupidly walk alone, they go down alleys thinking ‘I’ll just cut to my
apartment this way.’ That’s what happened to my friend Daniel and he got
mugged. So I think its people walking alone, I think that is the easiest target
because people don’t travel in groups.
A first year student at UCR mentioned that a number of factors contribute to being
an easy target specifically stating, “I think the criminals see someone who is stressed
out, or vulnerable, or just weak, or insecure that would be an easy target. I guess the
first thing they will see though is if they are alone.” Additionally, a first year student
at Pepperdine stated that an easy target would be, “A young woman who’s walking
at dark by herself.”
Not paying attention/ being careless. Students also agreed that when they are
not paying attention and being careless about their surroundings they are more likely
to become a victim of crime. At USC, a fourth year student stated, “An easy target
would probably be somebody who is distracted, someone who’s on the phone or on
their iPod because they’re not aware of their surroundings and not paying attention to
the people around them.” Another fourth year student at UCR had almost the exact
same response to this question, “An easy target is someone walking alone, not
paying attention, probably on their phone or with their music on.” At Pepperdine,
96
students also have the same opinion of what qualities make up an easy target. A first
year student said, “A lot of times girls will come into the cafeteria and just put their
purses down or something, not pay attention, and go and get food. Since it is a big
open room and everybody’s watching they think nobody ever does anything. But I
could see that as being something of an easy target.”
Vulnerable/Weak. Furthermore, students agreed that a person who may
easily become a victim of crime will usually demonstrate a sign of vulnerability or
weakness. Another USC third year student declares:
When the image of an easy target pops into my head, it’s someone who looks
vulnerable, either in their physical appearance or how they carry themselves.
Coming from the LGBT community, gay men aren’t necessarily physically
smaller than straight men but they carry themselves in a different way and I
think that tends to make them a target. And I think women tend to be targets,
unfairly. I see much smaller individuals who tend to be a target, people who
don’t give off that sense of confidence and self-awareness right away.
A first year student at UCR had a similar reaction, when asked to describe an easy
target he responded, “An easy target, I would say unfortunately a young female who
can be of any race, who may look defenseless. Looking defenseless basically means
seeing someone who will cause you to think to yourself ‘how is she going to stop me
from doing what I want to do to her?” A third year student at Pepperdine also
revealed that her idea of an easy target was someone who is vulnerable because he or
she had been drinking. “The first thing that came to mind was somebody who’s
drunk at a party. If you’re drunk at a party, you’re an easy target for violence. If
you are walking around and you’re just not conscious of where you’re at or what
97
you’re doing and the people around you, you are susceptible to being an easy target
for violence.”
Given the responses of the students at the three institutions, there is a clear
link to what students are saying regarding an easy target along with a connection to
gender and or sexual orientation. These beliefs that students hold are important and
will be discussed further in Chapter 5.
How Students Learn to Protect Themselves
Despite the fact that 36 students were interviewed and 518 students were
surveyed at three different universities, the ways in which students learn to protect
themselves are all similar. Student experiences with crime as well as the experiences
of their friends, family, faculty, or staff all contribute to the ways in which students
learn to protect themselves and not become victims. Moreover, students’ habits in
terms of where they go that makes them feel safe and the day-to-day methods they
use to keep themselves safe on campus are vital pieces of information that can help
to better explain the broader question of how students learn to protect themselves.
Ways Students Learn About Safety
In both the survey and the interview, the researcher asked the students to
describe the ways in which they learned about safety when arriving at their
university. Through the survey students were able to identify all of the ways that
they learn about safety, their choices were: Parents, Literature, Resident Advisor
(RA), Online, University Program, Department of Public Safety (DPS)/University of
98
California Police Department (UCPD), or Other. Figure 2 details how students
learned about safety when arriving on campus.
How Students Learn About Safety
Other, 53, 5%
Campus Police,
205, 21%
University
Program, 93, 9%
Online, 150, 15%
RA, 228, 23%
Literature, 110,
11%
Parents , 159, 16%
Parents
Literature
RA
Online
University Program
Campus Police
Other
Figure 2. Details the different ways students learn about safety. Respondents could
select all choices that applied.
Of the students surveyed, the most popular way students learn about safety is
from their Resident Advisor (RA) closely followed by the Campus Police. When
respondents marked the choice “Other,” they were able to specify what other
methods they felt students utilize to learn about safety. There were only two “Other”
methods that were specified, friends and personal experiences.
Through the interview process, students were also asked to describe the ways
in which they learned about safety when arriving at the university along with an
99
explanation of which of these ways was most helpful. Of the 36 students
interviewed at the three universities, 19 students mentioned their resident advisor
(RA) helped teach them about safety, 16 students mentioned a university program,
13 said that their parents taught them ways to keep themselves safe, 11 students
mentioned DPS or UCPD, 8 students mentioned their friends, and 4 students
mentioned the literature provided by the university. When asked which of these
ways was the most helpful, students stated one of the following three options:
parents, friends, or RA.
One third year USC student described his parents as being the most
influential way in which he learned about safety. He said,
For the most part my parents were always pressuring me to be aware of what
is going on around me…when they found out I was moving to Los Angeles
they said ‘okay, well, let’s talk about common sense, don’t go walking
around after dark’… I think they taught me the most important lessons.
A third year Pepperdine student expressed a very similar sentiment, he said, “Well
my parents definitely gave me some rules before I left. I think they were kind of
worried because I was coming from far away and they wouldn’t be able to watch me
all the time…I think they were worried that I would get robbed as soon as I got to
LA which did happen, you know kind of regular parent stuff.”
Friends were also an important way for students to learn about safety. A
third year USC student describes what she learned from her friends, she said:
Talking to my friends I didn’t feel like I was being talked at, which I felt with
DPS. I think DPS extends the talk too much and it wasn’t personal. It was
an entire auditorium so I didn’t feel comfortable asking a question or that
kind of thing…But definitely talking to my friends because it was a personal
100
connection, I feel comfortable with them. I could ask the questions that I had
and not feel embarrassed about them or naïve.
In addition, some students described their RA as being the most influential
way in which they learned about safety. A first year Pepperdine student explained,
“Mostly I learned about safety from upper classmen and especially my RA.
Basically I learned that it is a very safe campus…definitely my RA was the most
helpful.” A second year UCR student said also described the things her RA did to
promote safety, she stated:
My RA last year, every time we had hall meetings he would kind of remind
us, ‘Don’t walk around by yourselves, did you read this crime alert?’ He
would just bring up these issues to make sure we were aware of them even
though we got the crime alerts in the e-mail he wanted to make sure we were
reading them and kind of taking them not with a grain of salt and just putting
more weight on it than we might have. I know definitely my RA last year
made sure, especially with the girls made sure that we walked with a guy or
you know carry around mace to go and buy it from the bookstore because
they sell it on a rack right next to the front counter.
Student Experiences Related to Crime
During the interview process, the researcher asked all 36 participants what
experiences they have had with crime since arriving at the university. 30 students
responded by stating that personally they did not have any experiences with crime.
One first year UCR student said that, “As far as something happening to me, no. For
me personally Riverside has been pretty good.” Of the six remaining students all had
similar experiences with crime except one. Five of the six students’ experiences
with crime were related to theft of some sort; one student had his credit card stolen,
two students had their bicycles stolen, one student had her backpack stolen, and the
101
other student had a book stolen. The sixth student had a different experience, it was
with hate speech. This third year UCR student describes his experience as follows:
People say things to people once in a while, like to me, but they think it is
nothing. They just say things about me being gay and I’m not gay but people
talk about me. They’ll say things like that. They would say these things a lot
in my first year when I lived in the dorms. I’m pretty quiet overall so people
who would see me around would say stuff like that.
Many of the students participating in the study had personal experiences related to
crime which have influenced the way they protect themselves. Furthermore, the
experiences of their friends, family, faculty, and staff members teach the students
valuable lessons.
Experiences of Others Related to Crime
Using the survey data to better understand how students learn to protect
themselves, the researcher found that responses were mixed (see Figure 3). Through
the survey the overwhelming majority, 133 or 70.7%, of students at USC reported
that they knew someone who had experienced crime. At UCR and Pepperdine the
students who had such experiences were fewer than students at USC. At UCR less
than half, 72 of the 161 or 44.7%, of the students surveyed responded as having
someone they know, their friend, family, faculty, or staff, undergoing an experience
related to crime. At Pepperdine more than one third, 65 or 39.9%, of the students
surveyed answered that they knew someone who had experienced some form of
criminal activity. (See Figure 3, following page):
102
Experiences of Other People Related to Crime
133
72
65
55
89
97
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
USC UCR Pepperdine
University
Students
no
yes
Figure 3. Details students who knew someone who had suffered an experience
related to crime. Respondents could select only one answer to this question.
The interview data also showed mixed results. Of the 36 students
interviewed, 22 or 61.1% of the students interviewed stated that they had friends,
family, faculty, or staff that had been a victim of crime and 14 or 38.9% of the
students stated that they did not know anyone who had been a victim of crime. Of
those 14 students, 9 said that their friends, family, faculty, or staff had no
experiences with crime, 5 students said that they had heard about crimes taking place
but that none of their acquaintances had ever been a victim. Of the 22 students who
knew someone with experience related to crime 21 of the victims were their friends
and 1 student mentioned a crime that was committed against a family member, his
brother.
Of the 22 students who were victims of crime, 14 of those crimes were thefts:
5 students had friends who had their laptops stolen, 3 students had friends who had
103
their wallets stolen, 2 students had friends who had their purses stolen, 3 students
had friends or a brother that had their vehicles broken into and things stolen out of it,
and 1 student had a friend whose bike was stolen. The remaining 8 students all had
different experiences.
One second year student at Pepperdine University had a friend who received
a DUI after a night of drinking. He described the incident as follows:
It was a group of people and they were out on the beach and my friend
wanted to come back to campus after he had been drinking. They told him
not to but he ended up coming back, and we have the guard booths on both
sides of the campus, and he ended up flipping his car three times onto the
planter in front of one of the guard booths. He was kicked out of school.
The second year student further described the incident and who came to the scene of
the crime. He mentioned that the Department of Public Safety was the first to
respond but because the car flipped directly outside the guard booths of Pepperdine
University, that this incident technically happened off campus and therefore the Los
Angeles Police Department responded.
Three USC students alleged that they had friends who were victims of date
rape and were given “date rape drugs” such as GHB (gamma hydroxybutyric acid) or
“roofies” (rohypnol). The three students were female and one recalls the incident as
follows:
One of the girls in my sorority was a victim of the date rape drug, she had
GHB. It was before the UCLA game last year and she went over to a
fraternity house before they were going to walk to the Coliseum and then all
of sudden she was on the steps passed out after one drink. So they called an
ambulance but DPS came before the ambulance did.
104
Two students at USC and one student at UCR had a friend who was attacked
with a weapon. In the case of USC both students interviewed were in their fourth
year at USC and described an identical crime committed against their friend which
led the researcher to speculate that they were both describing an incident that
happened to a mutual friend. One of the respondents stated the following:
Actually a friend of mine freshman year got stabbed right here on Hoover.
He was walking back, after a night on the [fraternity] row with these three
other guys and this car drove by them and they started kind of yelling toward
the car because the were a little bit drunk and the car stopped and they were
chased and he got stabbed in his shoulder but he was fine, he still goes here.
DPS and the cops came to the scene, but they were kind of antagonizing the
guys it was kind of a fight. This was right over across from Starbucks on the
other side of Hoover, just a stone’s throw.
The UCR student, who also had a friend that was attacked with a weapon,
subsequently describes the story:
Well one friend in particular told me about how he was walking from I think
one block away from campus back onto campus to the dorms not that late at
night it might have been maybe 11 and he was walking by himself and there
was a car that stopped on the street next to him and two guys came out and
assaulted him and tried to steal his laptop and they had a knife or a razor with
them and they actually attacked him. He was actually physically hurt and he
didn’t put up a fight, but they still decided to hurt him anyways. He had to go
to the hospital that night and file a police report.
Lastly, one student at USC had a friend who was the victim of a hate crime
based on his sexual orientation. When the respondent described the incident he
stated:
He and a friend were in an alley and they were having an argument and not
necessarily because of their sexual orientation but just the way that they are,
their personalities are very stereotypical or two gay men. So there were four
men walking down the alleyway and noticed this argument. My friend and
his friend went separate ways after the argument because they were mad at
105
each other and my friend happened to run into the four guys and because they
made an assumption on his sexual orientation based on the way he was acting
earlier, they began to verbally abuse him, yelling slurs. Eventually it
escalated into a physical confrontation where he was pushed onto the ground
and pushed to his knees and there was simulated sexual activity. Nothing
actually, no actual violation, but it was simulated. From that point it sort of
de-escalated and they pushed him to the ground and left.
Methods Students Use to Keep Themselves Safe
When the 36 students interviewed at the three institutions were asked what
methods they use to keep themselves safe, their answers varied but did again fall into
themes. Students mentioned four routines that they follow in order to keep
themselves safe on campus: 1) never walking alone at dark; 2) always being aware;
3) checking doors and windows are locked; and 4) avoiding secluded areas (see
Figure 4).
Methods Students Use to Keep Themselves Safe
Lock Doors and
Windows, 9, 25%
Be Aware, 11, 31%
Avoid Secluded
Areas, 2, 6%
Don't Walk Alone,
14, 38%
Be Aware
Don't Walk Alone
Avoid Secluded Areas
Lock Doors and Windows
Figure 4. Depicts the different ways students describe to keep themselves safe.
106
The majority of students mentioned never walking alone as a method they
use to stay safe on campus. These students expressed the value of walking in groups
and how dangerous being alone really is. A fourth year USC student described how
she keeps herself safe, she said, “I just don’t walk places by myself at night or in a
bad area. I make sure that people know, someone, a friend or someone knows where
I’m supposed to be and then if I don’t show up there will them look for me.”
Students described being aware more specifically as always remembering to
bring a cell phone with them where they go, having their keys ready when they are
going to their cars, and making sure not to listen to their iPod while they are walking
around because it may deter them from noticing something suspicious. A second
year UCR student said,
If you have a class really late, try to walk with more people because most of
the time people that get jumped are by themselves and they aren’t really
paying attention sometimes they’ll be talking on their phone and someone
will come up from behind and attack them or whatever. So you just gotta be
more alert.
Checking that doors and windows are locked was mentioned by students in
order to prevent some sort of theft. A third year Pepperdine student stated,
I always lock my dorm door when I leave even though I live in a suite set up
so there are four rooms and a main room and a bathroom. Each of the rooms
has a lock and then the suite door has a lock. My roommates don’t lock the
suite door but I always lock my bedroom door.
Avoiding secluded areas was mentioned by two students. These students
mentioned that they oftentimes will take an indirect route to go where they need to if
107
that means that it is more populated and would increase the likelihood that someone
would notice if something went wrong. A fourth year UCR student stated:
If I do walk home alone I actually walk home through family housing. I
would say I’d stay along the street, but I feel like I would get mugged or hurt
more. I feel like family housing, at least there’s like families around people
around so like I feel a little more safe walking through that way. And I
always try to walk through well lit areas because a lot of times it’s just people
walking through dark areas that get hurt.
All of these methods are important in helping to keep students on campus
safe and thinking about ways they can protect themselves. What students already
know that relates to the Clery Act as well as the lessons they learn about ways to
better protect themselves are all consequential and help to answer the question, how
does the Clery Act affect current undergraduate students?
Research Question 2: How has student behavior changed as a result of the Clery Act
between students’ first and fourth year at the school they attended? Particularly, does
the Clery Act impact and change student behavior over time?
To answer the question regarding how student behaviors change as a result of
the Clery Act between students’ first and fourth year at the institution of higher
education, again survey and interview data were collected. Using
surveymonkey.com, surveys were sent to students at the three institutions, USC,
UCR, and Pepperdine, and more than 160 students at each institution responded. In
addition, the researcher conducted approximately 12 face-to-face interviews at each
institution with different groups of students.
108
Changes in Student Feelings toward Safety
Through both the survey and the interview, the researcher began by asking
each student to reflect on their first year experience and describe how safe they felt
on campus. The researcher was able to further ask the students interviewed if their
feelings have changed with regard to safety and if so in what ways. When looking at
the data from all three institutions, the survey data revealed that 55.9% of the
students felt very safe on campus during their first years, 40.5% of the students felt
somewhat safe on campus, and 3.6% of the students did not feel safe on campus (see
Table 25). After looking at each university individually, the researcher found the
results differed. However, the overwhelming majority of students at the institutions
felt very or somewhat safe while fewer than 4% of students did not feel safe. Figure
5 details the survey results of 510 students responding and further illustrates how
safe students felt when reflecting upon their first year.
Table 25:
How Safe Students Feel During their First year at the University by Numbers and
Average Given in Percentages
USC UCR Pepperdine Total Average (%)
Very Safe 95 43 152 290 55.9
Somewhat Safe 86 106 9 210 40.5
Not Safe 6 12 1 19 3.6
109
How Safe Students Felt: Reflecting on First-Year
Experiences
6
1 2
1
86
1 06
9
95
43
1 52
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
USC UCR Pepperdine
University
Students
very safe
somewhat safe
not safe
Figure 5. Details how safe students felt during their first years at their given
institutions. Respondents could only select one choice to describe their level of
safety.
At USC, when the respondents were asked to reflect upon their first years, 95
or 50.8% of the students indicated that they felt very safe, 86 or 46% of the students
indicated that they felt somewhat safe, and 6 or 3.2% of the students indicated that
they did not feel safe. At UCR, the results were a bit different when students were
asked to reflect upon their first years, 43 or 26.7% of the students indicated that they
felt very safe, 106 or 65.8% of the students indicated that they felt somewhat safe,
and 12 or 7.5% of the students indicated that they did not feel safe. At Pepperdine,
the results of the respondents were divergent as well. When answering the same
questions, 152 or 93.8% of the students indicated that they felt very safe, 9 or 5.6%
110
of the students indicated that they felt somewhat safe, and 1 or 0.6% of the students
indicated that they did not feel safe.
When the students interviewed were asked to reflect upon their feelings
related to safety since their first year, student responses were different depending on
their institution. At USC, six students said they felt very safe, two students said they
felt somewhat safe, and four students said they did not feel safe. At UCR, four
students said they felt very safe, seven students said they felt somewhat safe, and two
students said they did not feel safe. At Pepperdine all 11 students interviewed said
that they felt very safe.
Next the respondents were asked if their feelings regarding safety had
changed since their first year, 22 or 61.1% of the students said yes, while 14 of the
36 or 38.9% of the students interviewed at USC, UCR, and Pepperdine said no. Of
those 22 students who said yes their feelings regarding safety had changed either
causing students to feel more or less safe. The changes in student feelings can be
divided into four areas or themes: 1) students used to feel safer when they lived on
campus; 2) students used to feel safer when they didn’t know so much about crimes
committed on campus; 3) students feel safer now that they have adjusted to
university life; and 4) students feel safer now that they developed more friendships.
Safer When Living on Campus
Some students discussed how they felt safer when they lived on campus.
One second year USC student mentioned:
111
I’m pretty sure I felt safer last year but that because I was living in the dorm
on campus and I’ve never heard of anything that terrible happening on the
actual campus. I still feel safe, it’s just that, the dorms were on campus and
on campus is just a completely different thing. Even university housing off
campus seems like it’s farther away and not as patrolled as the things that are
on campus. Well also, in the residence halls on campus, my RA was two
doors down and there was an RA on every floor. So that if you needed
something there was someone right there.
Ignorance is Bliss
Other students discussed how they tend to feel more afraid now than they did
during their first year because of the knowledge that they have gained regarding
criminal activity. This is especially interesting because knowing about the crimes
committed on campus, which is the purpose of the Clery Act, actually makes some
students feel less safe. One fourth year UCR student stated:
I’d have to say I thought for the most part I always felt safe, I would say it
was an “ignorance is bliss” type of thing. I probably didn’t concern myself
with safety so much. My parents definitely were like, always be aware, but
as a freshman, you’re like la-dee-dah, I’m in the dorms I’m safe. But now I
realize that realistically I probably was not that safe. But now I definitely
feel safe in the fact I am aware. I guess because I’m more scared.
Adjusting to University Life
Many students reported that after adjusting to university life they felt safer on
campus. The term adjusting implies becoming more comfortable as well as just
getting used to the daily life of a college student. One first year Pepperdine student
said, “Since I first arrived I definitely haven’t felt less safe and if anything, maybe
even safer. When I first started off maybe I was being conscious of my new
computer or conscious of my stuff and now I just feel more comfortable here. So if
anything I feel safer.” A fourth year UCR student also shared with the researcher
112
why she feels safer now than when she first arrived on campus, she explains, “In
some ways I feel a bit safer now just because I know the campus better and I did
come in my freshman year knowing it wasn’t the best area so I was a little bit more
paranoid than most freshmen.” The implication by these students is that the way to
feel safer is related to the issue of awareness.
Developing Friendships
Many students discussed the fact that the friendships they have created at
their universities are the key to helping them feel safe on campus. One first year
UCR student stated:
I feel safer knowing that I’m not the only one and that I have friends that I
could walk in a group with or that I can call and say ‘someone is messing
with me get me out of this situation.’ I feel even more safe now that I have a
stronger friendship base because I’m from Northern California which means
that not many people came from Northern California so I only had about 3
friends that I knew coming in and that’s not a very big group to have. To be
in a fraternity now, to have people that I know I can call and say ‘I’m not
feeling safe right now.’ I know I’m a big tall black dude but we can feel
unsafe too, we have a right so I will say, ‘you guys come walk with me.’ I
feel safe having that friendship base.
Where Students Go On Campus to Feel Safe
Where students go on campus that makes them feel safe may seem like
something that is unique at every institution. However, based on the interviews
conducted by the researcher at USC, UCR, and Pepperdine, the answer seems to fall
into four categories. Students feel safe in the following settings: 1) apartment/ room
in the residence halls; 2) friends apartment/ room in the residence halls; 3) library; or
4) student center on campus. The four settings where students feel the safest on
113
campus are either solitary or settings where students interact with others. Of the 36
students being interviewed, 15 said they like to go to their apartments or their room
in the residence hall, eight said they prefer the library, eight said the enjoy going to
the student center on campus or whatever the central place where students meet up
and usually eat, and five students said they prefer to go and hang out with their
friends at their apartments or in their rooms in the residence halls.
Many students did mention that where they like to go depends on their mood.
If they want to be alone students will typically choose to go to their apartments or
rooms in the residence halls or the library. One third year Pepperdine student said,
“I feel really safe in my room because my stuff is here, I know it well. I have
familiarity with that area; it is almost a sense of habit, like I know exactly where my
stuff is going to be.” When asked about what places make him feel safe on campus,
a first year UCR student said that he finds comfort at the library. He said:
When I’m having a bad day oddly enough I go to the science library. I go
there because usually a bad day for me consists of I get into an argument with
one of my friends or hall mates. I have to just leave because I don’t want to
be in the dorms so I go to the science library. Ironically enough, the science
library also helps me focus more on my school work, I know that I am secure
there as far as people messing with me, I know I’m good because I’m away
from my friends that may have made me upset, and I get my school work
done so I go to the science library. I love it, I do everything there.
Furthermore, when students do not want to be alone and would rather be
surrounded by other people, they go to the student center on campus or wherever the
central place is that students meet up, or to their friend’s apartments or rooms in the
residence halls. One fourth year UCR student said that she usually prefers to be
114
around other people and that helps her to feel safe. She further explains where she
feels the safest, “…the commons, there is always a bunch or people around and there
is a lot of stuff to do, plus there is food which is always comforting.” In addition
many USC students shared the sentiment of wanting to be around others as a way to
feel safe, “usually I go to my boyfriend’s apartment which is close to campus. I
obviously go there because of the people there.”
Changes in the Ways Students Protect Themselves
To better understand how students are changing the ways that they protect
themselves, the researcher began by asking if students have changed the ways in
which they keep themselves safe since their first year. The survey results were as
follows, of the 510 students responding, 352 or 69% indicated that they have not
changed the ways in which they protect themselves while the remaining 158 or less
than 31% indicated that they have. Figure 6 displays how students responded at each
institution. At USC, 115 students specified that they have not changed how they stay
safe, at UCR, 93 students specified that they have not changed how they stay safe,
and at Pepperdine 144 students specified that they have not changed how they stay
safe. (See following page):
115
Have Students Changed How They Stay Safe
72
68
1 8
1 1 5
93
1 44
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
USC UCR Pepperdine
University
Students
no
yes
Figure 6. Details if students have changed the way in which they stay safe.
Respondents could select only one answer to this question.
Literature on Crime Awareness and Change
In order to have a complete understanding of the ways students protect
themselves and the changes they are making over time, we must also take into
account the methods the university utilizes to bring about awareness with regard to
crime. Typically each university will publish literature regarding crime and safety
and make it available to all students. During the survey and the interview the
researcher asked the participants if they received any literature regarding safety when
they arrived at their given institution.
The survey responses indicated that 339 students indicated that they did
receive literature from the university when they arrived on campus while 171
indicated that they did not. Of the 339 or 66.5% of the students who reported that
116
they did receive literature, the researcher followed up by asking, to what extent they
believed that the literature received changed the way they protect themselves. The
students were given five choices to describe how they related to the above statement:
strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, and strongly agree. The students
identified the most, 45 %, with being neutral about whether the literature they
received changed their behavior. While 26.2% of the students agreed with the
statement and 20.5% of the students disagreed leaving 2% of the students to strongly
agree and 6.3% of the students to strongly disagree with the statement.
When asked the same question in the interview, the researcher found that the
results yielded more mixed data. Of the 36 students participating in the interview 31
or 86.1% mentioned that they did receive literature when arriving at the university
while the rest of the students either did not remember receiving literature or reported
that they did not receive any literature. Next the students were asked if the literature
brought about any changes in behavior in terms of crime awareness and protection.
At the three different institutions, 16 students mentioned that the literature did bring
about change while 20 students mentioned that it did not. The results fell under two
themes; the students either felt the literature made them more cautious or they felt it
did not have an impact on their behavior. Both the quantitative and qualitative data
collected did not yield an overwhelming majority and was mixed.
Literature made some students more aware about crime. One fourth year
USC student revealed, “Once I received the literature I became more aware of crime
and more cautious just in terms of looking around myself and checking my
117
surroundings.” A second year Pepperdine student also had the same reaction, “I’d
probably have to say yeah the literature did make a difference because I kind of
know what precautions that I need to take in certain incidents now.”
Literature had no impact on some students. One the other hand, a third year
student at Pepperdine had the opposite reaction about the impact that the literature
had on him. The student stated, “I didn’t keep the literature I received because there
was too much. We had a folder with a lot of pamphlets and things about different
aspects of campus. I didn’t read it or keep it I just kind of dismissed it.” Similarly a
second year UCR student said:
I did receive something but when you move in you just receive piles of
papers and like I said with the e-mails after a while you just don’t read them
anymore because you are like ‘ok I got another flyer.’ I remember reading
things in passing on the bulletin boards but never really stopping to read it.
So I guess I did receive information but I never think I utilized it as wise as I
should have.
Crime Prevention Programs and Change
Another method the universities use to increase awareness about crime, are
crime prevention programs. Typically a university will hold sessions regarding
crime and safety during orientation. The university may also offer self defense
classes, promote safety walks on campus, and provide other forms of crime
prevention programs.
Survey participants were asked if they had ever attended a crime prevention
program at their institution. 58 students indicated that they had attended a crime
prevention program while 449 students indicated that they had not. Of the 58
118
students or 11.4% of respondents who specified that they have attended a crime
prevention program, the researcher followed up by asking them to what extent they
would agree that the information they learned from attending the crime prevention
program changed the way in which they protect themselves. The students were
given five choices to describe how they related to the above statement: strongly
disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, and strongly agree. Most students agreed that the
crime prevention program they attended did change the way in which they protect
themselves. Some of the students remained neutral about the statement and less than
9% of the students disagreed.
When asked the same question in the interview, the results were a bit
different because of the smaller population being studied. Of the 36 students
participating in the interview 23 or 63.9% mentioned that they have participated in a
crime prevention program since their arrival at the university and 13 students said
that they have not attended a crime prevention program. Figure 7 details the
interview results of 36 students attending USC, UCR, and Pepperdine University. At
USC, 11 students specified that they have attended a crime prevention program, at
UCR, 8 students specified that they have attended a crime prevention program, and
at Pepperdine 4 students specified that they have attended a crime prevention
program. The reason for this fairly large difference between the students who had
attended crime prevention programs in the survey and those participating in the
interview may be in part due to the respondents themselves. The students chosen to
participate in the interview had also participated in the survey and volunteered to
119
Students Attending Crime Prevention Programs
11
8
4
1
5
7
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
USC UCR Pepperdine
University
Students
no
yes
participate in interviews by including their e-mail addresses at the end of the survey.
Since this participation was voluntary and no incentive was offered, it can be
assumed that students who took part in the interview were interested in the topic.
Students who are interested in crime and crime prevention are also probably more
likely to attend crime prevention programs.
Figure 7. Details the number of students interviewed who have attended at least one
crime prevention program at their given institution.
The researcher then asked the students if the crime prevention program
resulted in any changes in behavior in terms of crime awareness and protection. All
students who attended a crime prevention programs considered them to be valuable
and they did result in changed behaviors. These students said that they learned how
to be more proactive and became more aware of their surroundings. Students
120
participating in crime prevention programs knew more about how to react if faced
with a criminal and revealed that they often feel safer because of their increased
awareness.
One first year UCR student discussed her experiences attending a crime
prevention program and the things that she learned. She explained:
During welcome week I attended a program. The woman who spoke didn’t
really teach us karate, it wasn’t a self defense class, but she basically told us
things we should do to stay safe. She gave us safety whistles and told us how
to react in case we need to, to always hold your keys and jab them up
someone’s chin or to remember to go for the weak spots…So now if I’m
walking by myself I will hold my keys that way or have my phone with me.
Another fourth year UCR student described how she has changed her behaviors since
attending crime prevention programs. The most recent program she had attended
was through her sorority, she said:
We just did a self defense program. We had a friend of ours who teaches a
self defense class who’s in a fraternity teach us a few things. Like what to do
like if someone grabbed you, different ways to hit them so you’d have time to
hit them and run away. He told us different statistics too, like what the most
common things are that happen, and what to do if a guy was on top of you
and you’re saying no or you’re being attacked. Small things too, like
carrying your keys in your hand… Now, I feel like it’s nice to have this
information in my head I feel more confident so if a situation does happen I
feel like I would be more prepared and they won’t catch me by surprise.
A fourth year Pepperdine student described his experience taking a self defense
class. He said, “I took tae kwon do through the school and it taught me different
things I could do in case something happened. It actually more just gave me the
confidence to know that if something were to happen I’d be okay.”
121
A third year USC student described his experience attending a crime prevention
program hosted by the university. He said:
I went to a program that involved DPS, it was to get us acclimated to the
area. For the most part I think that it really showed us about the area, things
that you didn’t think about or that we might not have known beforehand like
specific areas that you probably don’t want to go to. Also they told us things
that happen on campus…So the statistics and telling us what are great places
to be was really helpful just in knowing where you can walk around.
In addition, like all of the other students participating in the interview, USC
students discussed how valuable crime prevention programs are. One factor that was
different at USC than the other two institutions is that all 11 of the students who
attended a crime prevention program had programmed the telephone number of the
Department of Public Safety into their mobile phones. None of the other students
interviewed mentioned that they had done this.
Summary of Findings
Two Research Questions framed this study:
1. How does the Clery Act affect current undergraduate students? In particular,
what do students learn about crime as a result of the Clery Act and how does
that help them protect themselves?
2. How has student behavior changed as a result of the Clery Act between
students’ first and fourth year at the given institution of higher education?
Particularly, does the Clery Act impact and change student behavior over
time?
122
The research indicates that some students at the University of Southern
California, the University of California, Riverside, and Pepperdine University are
affected by the Clery Act and may even change their behavior with regard to their
own protection as a result of what they have learned. However, it is also clear that
other students are not affected by the Clery Act and that it does not promote change
in their behaviors.
Chapter four provided insight into the perceptions of students and the effects
that the Clery Act has on their behaviors. The data collected by the researcher
offered an important look into the current practices of college students with regard to
safety. Through a mixed methods approach the researcher collected data that
supports the notion that the Clery Act alone does not promulgate learning and
change. It is an important piece of legislation and can be even more effective to
instigate change in the practices of college students with regard to safety if coupled
with other valuable techniques which will be discussed in Chapter 5 that will help to
combat crime on college and university campuses.
The data presented in this chapter gives the reader a good indication of what
the goals of the Clery Act are and the areas in which there are shortcomings. In
addition to answering the research questions, the data offered valuable insight into
the perceptions of students regarding crime awareness and protection. The key area
of interest is how student affairs professionals can change the current practices of
undergraduate students helping them to become safer. This will be discussed further
in the following chapter.
123
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS
Chapter Overview
The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime
Statistics Act has two major purposes in higher education: 1) to help prospective
students and their parents make informed decisions regarding their choice of college
or university and 2) to keep those students, faculty, and staff at the college campuses
aware of criminal activity. The goal is that as a result of all of the information
available, current and prospective members of the campus community will make
intelligent decisions regarding their safety.
The purpose of this study was to investigate how the Clery Act has affected
the learning and development process of undergraduate students with regard to
measures they take to protect themselves and to explore how the Clery Act has
influenced and changed student behaviors over time. Three institutions, the
University of Southern California (USC), the University of California, Riverside
(UCR), and Pepperdine University (Pepperdine), were represented in this study.
From the three institutions, 518 students responded to a survey regarding crime
awareness and protection and 36 students participated in interviews conducted by the
researcher. In order to be eligible for this study, the students had to be considered
“traditional,” which is the term used to describe first-time, full-time, and first-year
students attending college or university directly out of high school (Borden, 2004).
124
The results of the study, presented in Chapter 4, enabled the researcher to
determine the overall effectiveness of the Clery Act and the effects that it has on
student behaviors. The focus of this chapter will include a brief overview of the
study’s main findings. Then, conclusions drawn from the research are presented
followed by recommendations. Finally, implications for future research are
discussed.
Discussion of Main Findings
The data collected offers perspectives from students at USC, UCR, and
Pepperdine University. The data allows for comparisons as well as the differences in
perspectives and responses to be clearly viewed. Three themes emerged from the
quantitative and qualitative data sets and these themes provide the support for this
discussion.
Affects of Clery Act on Students
Based on the results of this study, the greater majority of students do not
know what the Clery Act is or the knowledge that it can potentially provide to them.
Students do not know that they have information regarding crime on campus readily
available to them and their families, and that this information is designed to help
them make decisions regarding behavioral choices they can make once they are on
campus, as well as choices regarding which campus they choose to attend. As a
result of not knowing about the Clery Act, crime statistics become a negligible factor
for many students when they are choosing a college or university to attend. Given
that the purpose of the Act is to increase students’ knowledge about crime in order to
125
create groups of students that are more likely to make good choices and not become
victims of crime, students must first know that such information is available to them.
How Students Learn About Crime
This research illustrates that students are not necessarily learning about crime
as a result of the Clery Act but rather through personal experiences and the
experiences of others. As a result of these lessons learned, students stated to the
researcher that they would be less likely to partake in certain activities such as:
walking alone in the dark, holding items such as a laptop, iPod, or cell phones in
plain view, and wearing a lot of jewelry or being in possession of other eye catching
belongings. One third year UCR student described the changes he had made in his
behaviors as a result of experiences he has had,
… I don’t go out too late, if I do I’m with other people. I don’t go out in dark
areas, I kind of stay out in the open. I just kind of avoid being by myself
pretty much. Even though I’m a guy I know I can easily become a victim if I
got swarmed by a bunch of guys.
Many students also learned about crime and crime awareness based on what
they were told when first arriving at the university. Many students remembered and
always followed the advice of their Resident Advisor as well as the campus police.
Change in Student Behaviors over Time
When students first arrived at their college or university, many of them had a
similarly naïve attitude about crime. But their experiences are what lead to growth
and change in behaviors. Given that this study was about crime, students most
commonly changed their behaviors when it came to protection and awareness, after
126
they had an experience with crime or based on what they learned in a university
program that they attended. Other influential factors included their parents,
information available online, and literature they received from the institution.
In addition, when a student is in her fourth year at a given institution she is
also more comfortable in certain ways. She may be less likely to get lost on campus,
she knows who to go to with specific problems, and she has likely fallen into some
sort of routine. This stability caused by the routine that is in place as students move
from one year to the next is another means of growth.
Conclusions
The goal of this research study was to determine whether student change in
behaviors regarding crime is a result of the Clery Act or if change is brought about
through another method. This study investigated whether or not the Clery Act
affects current undergraduate students and how student behaviors change as a result
of the Clery Act between students’ first and fourth year at the institution they had
chosen to attend. The perceptions of many traditional students were gathered and
analyzed. These research findings lead to two conclusions regarding the Clery Act
and its impact on student behaviors.
The two conclusions are:
1. The Clery Act is changing student behaviors in some ways. It is important to
make students aware of what is happening at their given institutions with
regard to crime statistics. It is causing students to reflect upon the issue more
127
often, however it is not enough. It is up to the institution to teach students
methods they can use to protect themselves.
2. Student behaviors are not changing between their first and fourth year at the
given institutions because of the Clery Act alone. The knowledge students
gain from the Clery Act is useful and does make a difference, but it is only
one of many factors that illicit change. Over time students become more
acclimated to the university at large, they develop more friendships, and they
develop new outlooks on what is important in life.
Overall, the perceptions and findings regarding what students think about
crime and the Clery Act were mixed. Through the data analysis process it became
clear that some aspects and accomplishments produced by the law were considered
very positive, yet the data also revealed some areas that need to be improved.
Positive Aspects of the Clery Act
The Clery Act has been successful in maintaining compliance from
institutions across the United States with regard to the given regulations. These
regulations include: policy disclosure, record collection and retention, and
information dissemination (U.S. Department of Education, 2005).
As mentioned in Chapter 2, policy disclosure is the practice that requires each
institution to provide the campus community and the public with accurate statements
of its current policies and practices. These practices include the procedures for
students and others to report criminal actions or other emergencies occurring on
128
campus. Security of, and access to, campus facilities and campus law enforcement
must also be disclosed (U.S. Department of Education, 2005).
The three universities examined by the researcher all made their current
campus policies available to the general public. The researcher was able to go to
each of the institutions websites and easily navigate to the page where this
information was displayed.
With regard to records collection and retention, institutions are required to
keep campus records regarding crimes and to request records from law enforcement
agencies. Every institution must keep records of crimes reported to campus security
authorities. In addition, colleges and universities must make a reasonable good-faith
effort to obtain certain crime statistics from appropriate law enforcement agencies to
include in an annual security report and the web-based report to U.S. Department of
Education. If the institutions maintain a campus police or security office, they are
required to keep a daily crime log that must be open to public inspection (U.S.
Department of Education, 2005).
Upon visiting the offices responsible for heading campus safety at USC,
UCR, and Pepperdine, the researcher found that crime records were maintained and
were available for the public to view. In terms of whether or not the universities
request records from law enforcement agencies, it is difficult to know for sure. The
researcher is clear upon one fact however, that the given offices were aware that they
are required to gather such information.
129
Lastly, information dissemination, colleges and universities must disseminate
information in several ways. First, they must provide a “timely warning” of any
Clery Act crime that may represent an ongoing threat to the safety of students or
employees. Next, they must provide access to the campus crime log during normal
business hours. Third, they must publish an annual security report and distribute it to
all current students and employees, and inform prospective students and employees
about the content and availability of the report. In addition the institution must
inform the campus community where to obtain information about registered sex
offenders. Finally, the institution is required to submit crime statistics to the
Department of Education through a web-based data collection system (U.S.
Department of Education, 2005).
At USC, UCR, and Pepperdine, the researcher found that the Departments of
Public Safety or the UC Police Department were in compliance with the information
dissemination regulations associated with the Clery Act. With regard to providing
“timely warnings” to the campus community regarding crimes, at USC and UCR
students, faculty, and staff receive electronic mail (e-mail) messages within one to
two days of the crime incident, and at Pepperdine, the incidents are published in the
university’s bi-weekly newspaper (see Appendix C). In addition, campus crime logs
were available along with the annual crime reports. Upon visiting the website of the
US Department of Education and more specifically the Office of Postsecondary
Education, the researcher was able to find crime statistics for USC, UCR, and
Pepperdine. On the website the researcher found general information about the
130
given institutions as well as reports of criminal offenses, hate offenses, and arrests.
When looking up both USC and UCR the researcher also found that off campus
crime statistics were included with the campus crime statistics, while at Pepperdine
the off campus crime statistics were not available.
Ways to Improve the Clery Act
The researcher found that the Clery Act has been successful in mandating
that colleges and universities across the United States disclose policies, maintain and
keep records, and distribute information however, it also faces some shortcomings.
Defining Borders
It is up to each campus to define the borders of its institution and the areas it
reports in its crime statistics. As defined by the Clery Act legislation, the university
must report crimes that take place “on-campus,” what is defined as “non-campus,”
and what is defined as “public property” (Security on Campus, 2006). On campus
refers to “residential facilities for students on campus.” Public property refers to
“unobstructed public areas immediately adjacent to or running through the campus
such as streets and sidewalks.” Finally, non-campus refers to “facilities, including
Greek housing, remote classrooms, or non-campus buildings, used regularly by
students” (Security on Campus). In order to define these borders, colleges or
universities will oftentimes construct a map showing where they draw the lines.
There is an inherent problem with the fact that the universities define their
own borders, thus, given the parameters of the Clery Act, there is an undeniable
conflict of interest. Borders will be drawn to minimize crime statistics. There are
131
aspects to every university that are similar to a business, and as a business the
university will always try to maintain the lowest crime statistics possible. It may be
possible that a crime may take place within one mile of a college or university
however the location will not be considered campus, and therefore will not be
reported as such.
One Pepperdine student described to the researcher an incident when his
roommate received a citation for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) in
front of the guard gate of the university. He said, “Public safety came first but they
ended up calling LAPD and LAPD came down. I think because the school kind of
labeled a DUI on a more serious level and didn’t want to report it.” This crime
happened in front of the guard gate of the university; however the institution
classified its borders in such a way that they were able to avoid reporting this
incident. The way these borders are drawn can easily be seen as a loophole that
colleges and universities have discovered in order to keep their crime statistics low.
Since one of the goals of the Clery Act is to make college and university
communities aware of crimes taking place on campus, the federal law should take
into account the community surrounding the campus, and it should not be exempt.
At the very least every college or university should be required to report crimes
occurring within a quarter mile radius of the campus. It is the right of each student
to know what is happening in the community in which they live, not just what is
happening on what is considered to be the actual campus and parts of the sidewalk
connecting the campus together. It is up to each college and university to face crime,
132
to acknowledge its crime statistics, and develop an all-inclusive approach to fighting
crime.
Recommendations
The Clery Act is a law that places certain regulations on colleges and
universities. The Clery Act defines what statistics to report and who to report them
to, it is a reactive law. Everything that Clery statistics include are about crimes that
have already taken place. It is up to the institutions to think of new, proactive
methods. The focus of the university should be on designing a far-reaching plan to
protect students and not just hope that because they know that crimes have occurred
in the past, they will not happen to them. Student affairs professionals must
empower students; they must give students the tools they need to make informed
choices about their protection and therefore help minimize the possibility that they
can potentially become victims.
Comprehensive Approach to Crime Awareness
In order to successfully combat crime on college and university campuses,
the institution must be committed to designing a comprehensive approach toward
crime awareness and protection. In order to do this the institution must first
understand that it is not alone in the community. In the case of the University of
Southern California, the institution is one of the focal points of its surrounding
community. When it comes to fighting crime and protecting others, USC is a partner
within the community. The other partners consist of the area residents, the
neighboring schools and businesses, the Los Angeles Police Department, and the
133
university’s own Department of Public Safety which prides itself on maintaining one
of the largest police forces in the country. All of these agents work together at USC
to protect the community. It is valuable for all colleges and universities to adopt this
broad approach toward safety. The outcome of this teamwork is a safer campus
community as a whole.
Increase Awareness about What the Clery Act is
Since over 90 percent of the students participating in this study responded
that they did not have any knowledge of the Clery Act, there are definitely areas for
improvement in terms increasing awareness regarding what the Clery Act is. The
Clery Act was designed to provide information to help prospective students make
decisions regarding what campus to attend and also current students stay safe once
they have arrived on that campus. In terms of keeping the current students safe, not
knowing what they Clery Act is, does not mean that students are not affected by the
outcomes of the law. The efforts that the campuses make, for example: publishing
crime statistics, offering safety programs, publishing literature, providing trainings to
staff, and so much more, are all often a result of the Clery Act. Therefore students
feel the effects of the legislation whether they know what it is called or not.
However, in terms of prospective students, the best way to increase awareness is to
make a change at the federal level with regard to the information that is available. At
the federal level the Clery Act should allocate money to begin a social market
campaign to raise awareness of the Clery Act Legislation for prospective students
and their parents. This campaign should target prospective students and their parents
134
and should be led by the US Department of Education rather than the individual
colleges or universities. Such a campaign will highlight the goals of the Clery Act to
students before beginning college or university and will therefore stay with them
while they are at their given institution and increase their likelihood of being aware
and staying safe.
Change the Structure of the E-mails Notifications Sent to the Campus Community
Many college and university campuses subscribe to meeting the “timely
warning” aspect of the Clery Act legislation by sending out e-mails to their campus
communities when a crime has been committed on campus. There are however,
some changes that should be made to the structure of the e-mail notifications sent: e-
mails should be sent less often, e-mails should include an interactive map to illustrate
where the given crime took place, and after completing their first year at the
institutions, students should have the option of subscribing to the e-mail
notifications.
E-mails of crime incidents should be sent out less often. As discussed in
Chapter 4, students taking part in this study believed that they receive too many e-
mails from the university about crime incidents. Students went even further and told
the researcher that they do not read the e-mails, that they clutter the electronic
mailbox, and that they usually describe the same crimes over and over again. One
solution to this problem is to decrease the number of crime incident e-mails that are
sent out to students, faculty, and staff and making them more comprehensive. Just as
there is a hierarchy in the criminal justice system in the United States with regard to
135
punishment for crime, there should be a hierarchy regarding the crime incidents that
are sent out via e-mail. All crimes are not created equal and should not be sent out in
individual e-mails to students. The burglary of a laptop or iPod is a very different
level of crime than a sex offense or murder. Sending out too many e-mails can make
student calloused toward crime causing them to think that crimes occur all the time
so who cares. The majority of e-mails that are sent to students regarding crime
depict burglaries or thefts. Therefore colleges and universities should send out e-
mail notifications less often, perhaps bi-weekly, and include the most pressing
crimes first followed by the rest. However, if a very serious crime does occur on
campus the campus police should send out a separate e-mail and the bi-weekly time
frame should not apply. If crime reports are sent out less often, students will be
more likely to read them and change their behaviors with regard to protecting
themselves.
E-mails that are sent out should be accompanied by an interactive map.
Many students expressed to the researcher that when they do read the crime reports
sent to them by campus police, they do not read them in full. Rather students
reported that they scan the document for certain pieces of information, specifically
the location of the crime. Therefore the e-mails that are sent to students should be
accompanied by an interactive map in which students can click and see what crime
occurred and where. Given that students are more interested in the location and
patterns of crime locations, including a map is a simple method that will get the
136
necessary information out to students in a new way. With a map students will really
be able to see exactly what crimes are taking place and where they are happening.
Subscribing to e-mails. Since many students expressed that they received too
many e-mails, giving them the option to subscribe to the e-mail notification may be
helpful. After students have completed their first year at the institution, they should
be given the option of signing up for e-mails in terms of daily, weekly, or bi-monthly
reports. As a result students do not feel bombarded and are more apt to read the e-
mails when they see them. Again, if a very serious crime does occur on campus the
campus police should send out a separate e-mail to all students regardless of their
subscription status.
Student Access to Important Information
Since one of the most beneficial outcomes of the Clery Act is information
dissemination it is only fitting to identify ways in which institutions can publicize
more important information to their students. One of the most critical pieces of
information for students to have access to, are important telephone numbers. These
telephone numbers may be emergency or non-emergency but, either way, they are
important for students to know.
The researcher asked all 36 students participating in the interview to identify
something that they carry with them at all times when they are on campus or in the
local area around campus. The overwhelming majority of students mentioned three
things: 1) student identification cards; 2) key chains; and 3) cell phones.
137
Student identification cards. The student identification card is required by
every college or university. Students use their identification card for library
privileges, to purchase food; students use their identification card when taking
exams, and when performing several other basic functions as a student. According
to one second year USC student,
I think that putting more information on the I.D. card works the best. Your
I.D. card is your right hand or your left hand, which ever one you are. You
always have it on you, to buy food, to get into your apartment if you’re in
school housing, to take exams, whatever.
Another third year USC student expressed the same sentiment regarding the value of
putting important phone numbers on the back of the student identification card, she
said,
I think that printing numbers like the Department of Public Safety or the
Center for Women and Men on campus on the back of the I.D cards is a great
idea. I think it’s a fantastic idea because the majority of people have
discretionary money or some kind of meal plan or just use their I.D. card to
get into the library or the computer lab. So basically it is always on them and
I definitely think that’s a good idea.
Student identification card holders. Oftentimes students will be given certain
items from the institution when they arrive. It is common that in their introductory
packets students may receive a student identification card holder. In order to have
another means of accessing important information, it is beneficial to students to print
important telephone numbers and information on the back of this card holder. It is
important to note however that this card holder should be designed to withstand wear
and tear and being in a student’s pocket over time. One first-year UCR student
showed the researcher his identification card holder, he said,
138
Look at my key thing, everything is faded off so if its night time you think
how am I possibly going to be able to read this. It’s really interesting
because on the back of this thing you could once see emergency numbers, the
police number, escort service, campus health center, counseling, domestic
violence, I can’t even read the rest of them, rape prevention, suicide,
transportation, but all of the actual phone numbers for these places have all
faded. These holders are really cheaply made, everything is fading off.
Perhaps the solution to this problem would be to distribute sturdier identification
card holders that will last them. This UCR student was in his first year and the
interview took place in February of 2007 meaning that he had only had the
identification card holder for a total of five months. More money should be spent on
quality products for students after all these products are ideally supposed to last
students for the duration of their time at the university.
Key Chain Paraphernalia (lanyards, supermarket club card). Since students
carry their key chains with them at all times, it is another place where information
that is valuable to students can be made available. Many students today carry
lanyards around their neck, and these lanyards typically have a key ring attached to
the bottom. The lanyards also typically have the logos of the universities on them
and can be purchased at the university bookstore. In addition to the logo of the
university a very quick and easy way to disseminate information to the students
would be to also print important telephone numbers on the back of the lanyard. One
third year USC student mentioned the lanyards to the researcher and stated, “What I
think of when I think of key chains is that I know a lot of students have the USC
lanyards. And you could put information on the inside of the lanyard, that could be
interesting and helpful.”
139
With regard to adding an item onto existing key chains, students interviewed
were very responsive to the idea of adding on a small and sturdy addition to their key
rings much like a gym identification card or supermarket club card. This additional
card would have on it, important telephone numbers and websites for students to be
able to find easily. One third year UCR student mentioned,
If it were something like I get at the gym or like a Ralphs Club, something
that I could add on to my key ring, that wasn’t too big and easy to keep, I
would do it. It would have all the important numbers on it and websites, or
maybe even helpful hints to be safe.
Input important numbers into cell phones. Students today do not go
anywhere without their cell phones and therefore it is logical to reach out to students
to program important telephone numbers into their cell phones. At USC of the 12
students interviewed, 11 had attended a crime prevention program on campus and of
those 11 students 100% of them had input the telephone number for the Department
of Public Safety and also Campus Cruiser (the campus escort service) into their cell
phones. When asked why they decided to do this the third year USC student
mentioned, “I have programmed them into my cell phone, certain numbers that you
just think oh ok this is probably a number I should keep in my phone, I always take
my phone with me.” Another fourth year USC student mentioned,
On the introductory day of my program, DPS came to speak to our group.
The officer actually asked us all to take out our cell phones and wrote down
the telephone number on the board and asked that we program it in. He
waited and walked around while we all did it. Four years later, I still have
the number programmed into my phone.
140
Teach Students Good Habits when they Arrive at the University
When students first enroll in the university they are more eager to follow
recommendations made by any authority figure. First year, or first time transfer
students do not have a routine when they initially arrive on campus therefore it is up
to student affairs professionals to give them the information they will need to stay
safe on campus. One third year USC student stated,
I guess you would just have to really start from the get-go, as soon as they
arrive on campus, whether it be through the freshman orientations, even
transfer orientations, they’re required to go to this. And then the majority of
people who attend this school will live in university housing their first or
second year. So I think you just have to make sure that the information is
available from the beginning and then it’ll just kind of trickle with them.
Also it is not a coincidence that 100% of students who attend crime prevention
programs at the three institutions changed their behaviors with regard to crime
awareness in a positive manner. These students knew techniques about how to
protect themselves if in an unsafe situation, and they knew who to contact for help.
Universities do not mandate such programs, they are usually voluntary, universities
can however require students to attend at least one crime prevention program a
semester. Administrations can even give students incentives to participate such as
early registration for classes or discounted meal plans. At USC students must
participate in “alcohol edu.” One fourth year USC student describes the benefit of
required activities,
So I guess if I were to have a wish list, my first thing would be not optional
but some kind of requirement for incoming students, whether transfer or
freshman, with information on the numbers that they can call in situations.
Like, hypothetical scenarios and the different things that they would
141
recommend you do. When I first came here they had this mandatory thing
that was new for my freshmen class that you had to take an online course
about awareness alcohol and that kind of thing. It was only, like, a couple of
hours. It was like an hour and then you had to answer questions. It was a
requirement we didn’t get anything for doing it. If we did not do it, we could
not register for the next semester of classes that was the hook.
Student Run Campus Escort Services
At all three of the institutions researched in this study, students were offered
a service which provided a safe walk or ride home. In the case of USC, the program
is called Campus Cruiser, at UCR it is called the Campus Safety Escort Service, and
at Pepperdine it is called the Student Service Officer Escort Program. In the case of
UCR and Pepperdine the program is run by student volunteers however at USC the
program is run by student workers, the difference being that at USC the students
participating in Campus Cruiser are getting paid to do so.
Escort services should be in place at all institutions. Through this study the
researcher found that students are more responsive to participate in such programs if
there is some sort of compensation. The compensation does not always have to be
monetary however; the university may also provide additional incentives to
participate in such programs like discounts at the campus bookstore or university
meal plans. One first year UCR student stated,
They have a volunteer escort service but how many people are you going to
get to volunteer. A lot of people are busy with whatever, you have a lot of
really good people out there but a lot of people don’t have the time to do
something like that so they maybe can compensate or give a free meal plan or
something for people who would like to escort, you know give incentives to
make people want to come out because you can’t say just come out.
142
Avoid Another Incident Like Virginia Tech
Recent events have made it impossible for colleges and universities to ignore
the need for a quick safety response systems in the case of an emergency. Given that
emergency situations arise on campuses without any notice, major colleges and
universities around the nation must begin to implement a comprehensive plan to
increase communications with students during an emergency. This plan should
include sending out e-mails, computer pop-ups, text messages, and automated
telephone calls to all members of the campus community in an emergency situation.
Such responses should also be mandated, and the Clery Act at the federal level
should be amended to include these response methods. The result will be that all
colleges and universities across the country will be required to have the same
emergency response systems in place.
Reverse 9-11 (e-mail, important information pop-ups on computer, text
message, automated telephone call). In order to truly be successful in
communicating with the campus community it is important to implement more than
one method of contact with students. By broadening the methods used, the chance of
circulating the necessary information is greatly increased. College and university
students today are oftentimes more connected to information as well as each other
than previous generations due to technological advances. Students today use many
forms of modern technology in order to communicate with one another. Electronic
mail and the use of cellular phone (cell phone) innovations including text messaging
provide fast and easy ways to increase communications between students.
143
Currently many colleges and universities send out electronic mail (e-mail)
messages after a crime incident has occurred which gives students information
regarding the event including a description of the crime in question and where and
when it took place. In this study both USC and UCR send out such e-mails (see
Appendices A and B), doing so keeps the universities in compliance with the Clery
Act’s mandate to notify students of criminal activity taking place on campus in and
supply students with a “timely warning.”
In the case of a true emergency situation, students should have the option of
receiving an e-mail in real time to their preferred e-mail account. Since many
students are online throughout the day this is a logical way to get pertinent
information out to students. In order for the students to receive the information they
would however need to be online.
Despite the fact that many students may be online, there will be other
students who are not. In addition to e-mailing students, the university can make
“timely warnings” with information pop ups on any computer as long as you know
the IP address. This was the method people used to chat with one another on the
computer before there was instant messaging. This way people just have to be
connected to the internet, not necessarily checking their e-mail and they will receive
the warning in a pop up form on their computer screen even. Since every campus
knows all the IP addresses for all of its users who connect to the university server,
the university can broadcast a warning with pertinent emergency situation
information to all of the computers.
144
Using cell phone innovations is another important technique that colleges and
universities can implement in order to disseminate information to their students. As
stated earlier, the students interviewed in this study identified three things that they
carry with them at all times when they are on campus, their id cards, their key chains,
and their cell phones. Since so many students have cell phones, student affairs
professionals and departments of public safety can quickly and easily communicate
with students via this device. Text messaging is one of the main methods of
communication between students on campuses today and therefore a valuable tool to
utilize during an emergency situation. In addition, students with cell phones
generally answer them and check their messages, so sending out an automated voice
message informing students of a threat on campus is another valuable tool.
The best way to prepare students in an emergency situation is to use the
methods mentioned above to disclose emergency situation information to students in
conjunction with one another. By using the combination of sending an e-mail, pop-
up, text message, and voice mail to students during a crisis, they will be more likely
to receive the necessary information.
At many universities around the nation, the use of such a comprehensive plan
to get urgent information out to the campus community is already in place. At the
University of Southern California, the plan is called “TrojansAlert” (see Appendix
D). However such plans can only be implemented with the cooperation of the
campus community. Students, faculty, and staff at all institutions are responsible for
enrolling in such programs as “TrojansAlert” and submitting the additional
145
information that the university may need in order to alert the campus of a threat.
This information will include a preferred e-mail address, a cell phone number, and
even your computer’s IP address. By providing the university with such
information, student affairs professionals will be able to maintain an even broader
campus-wide database than what currently exists.
Implications for Future Research
Despite the fact that this study examines a common phenomenon, crime, the
Clery Act is relatively new legislation that addresses many new questions. The
continued research of this phenomenon should be focused on gaining a deeper
understanding of multiple facets of the Clery Act and its affects on students. In the
following section, possible implications for future research are discussed.
In this study students who were interviewed discussed that the e-mails they
receive from the given campus police quickly become redundant. Some students
specifically mentioned that the e-mails all say the same thing; there is always a
reference to “a student getting assaulted by a Black or Hispanic male.” The impact of
such a statement is very far reaching since the goal of the Clery Act is to protect all
students. If the stereotype is that only Black or Hispanic males can be aggressors,
students can build up false senses of security in their own minds and remain unsafe.
They may think that because the following person does not fit this certain mold, it is
impossible that they could be harmful. Gaining a better understanding of the
different stereotypes that students have with regard to crime would shed light on the
gap in the methods students use to protect themselves.
146
The majority of students who were interviewed also described “easy targets”
in a similar way. Students specifically associated vulnerability and weakness with
“women or gay men,” going even further to describe that these groups are targeted
because they are physically smaller or because they carry themselves a certain way.
Again, the impact of such a statement is very far reaching since the goal of the Clery
Act is to protect all students. If the stereotype is that only women and gay men can
be victims, students can again build up unrealistic senses of security in their own
minds and remain unsafe. They may think that because they do not fit that given
criteria, they could never be a victim of crime. Understanding such stereotypes
would again explain why there is a gap in the methods students use to stay safe.
In addition, gaining a better understanding of the different ways males and
females respond to crime is an area that should be researched further. Based on this
study, students were students regardless of their backgrounds. However, this does
not mean that men and women have the same feelings toward crime and their own
personal safety. In this study, the researcher was not able to completely draw out the
differences between the two genders because it was not large enough. Also the
number of males versus the number of females who participated in the study was a
bit disproportionate, 41 percent of the respondents were male while 59 percent of the
respondents were female. Studying the connection between gender and the methods
students use to keep themselves safe is an interesting area to examine in the future.
Another interesting implication for future research involves diversity. Given
that this study is about students and crime it would be very interesting to know if
147
students with differing demographic characteristics such as ethnicity or socio-
economic status are affected differently in terms of their conceptions and perceptions
or crime. As stated above, based on this study, students were students regardless of
their backgrounds. The majorities of students portrayed an attitude of being
invincible and were incredibly naïve when it came to crime. Only as they developed
and grew as citizens of the campus community did they change. In this study,
diversity and student behaviors did not seem to be correlated. This study is
consistent with students being young and naïve. An in depth examination of the link
between diversity and student behaviors in terms of crime protection and safety
would reveal additional information that may be used to implement new strategies to
keep the campus communities safer.
The purpose of the additional research studies is to further explore what
students know about crime, how to help them learn more, and how crime awareness
changes student behaviors. In addition, the implications for future research focuses
on the Clery Act with the goal of better understanding student behaviors and needs.
The most meaningful goal at every college or university is to promote learning.
Understanding the best methods of advancing learning and encouraging progressive
student development is a continuous goal of student affairs professionals.
This study revealed more about the Clery Act than previously existed;
however there is still much more research to be done. The results of this study
offered the perspectives of students and establish why campus crime and methods to
evoke change in student behaviors with regard to crime awareness and protection are
148
important. Future studies may provide more questions and answers, with the goal of
helping student affairs professionals to change the current practices of college
students with regard to safety.
Closing
In the opinion of the researcher, there is still a long way to go in terms of the
Clery Act, but as a whole it is effective. I do not think that the college and university
systems of today would operate the same without the Clery Act nor should it. This is
an important law because it gives the college and university community the ability to
empower itself with knowledge because after all, knowledge is power. When a
person gains information regarding a subject like the Clery Act, the information is a
tool that the person can use to take an active role in better understanding and
working on appropriate changes to the law.
This study looked deeper at the effects of crime statistics on college and
university students by surveying and interviewing students. More work is required
of student affairs professionals who want to change the current practices of students
with regard to safety and implement plans to keep them safer. Student affairs
professionals have the unique opportunity to help students develop further in their
behaviors and help to enlighten students with regard to their own safety and
protection.
149
REFERENCES
Antonelli, L. (2005). Family continues quest for safe campuses. Retrieved June
14, 2006 from http://www.psu.edu/dept/comm/news/roarw05/quest.htm.
Astin, A. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher
education. Journal of College Student Development, 40(4), 518-529.
Beyer, D. (1997). School safety and legal rights of students. ERIC/CUE Digest,
121, 1-10.
Bickel, R.D., & Lake, P.F. (1999). The rights and responsibilities of the modern
university: who assumes the risks of college life? Durham, NC: Carolina
Academic Press.
Borden, V. M. H. (2004). Accommodating student swirl: When traditional students
are no longer the tradition. Change, 36(2), 10-17.
Bradley, E. (2006). 60 Minutes: Interview with President Brodhead. Retrieved April
7, 2007 from http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2006/12/60_minutes.html.
Brubacker, J and Rudy, W. (1997). Changes and increases in administrative
personnel. In Goodchild, Lester and Weshler (Eds.), The History of Higher
Education (2d. Ed.), AHSE Reader Series (pp. 315-317). Needham Heights:
Simon and Schuster Publishing.
California Secretary of State (1996). Proposition 96. Retrieved on June 8, 2006
from www.vote96.ss.ca.gov.
California State Auditor (2007). California’s Postsecondary Educational
Institutions: Stricter Control and Greater Oversight Would Increase the
Accuracy of Crime Statistics Reporting. Retrieved on February 2, 2007 from
http://bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2006-032.pdf
Conte, A. (2000). In loco parentis: Alive and well. Education, 121(1), 195-201.
Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, 294 F. 2D 150 (5
th
Cir. 1961).
Duke University (2007). Duke News and Communications. Retrieved on April 7,
2007 from www.dukenews.duke.edu/mmedia/features/lacrosse_incident.
150
Erikson, E. (1963). Childhood and society (2
nd
ed.). New York: W.W. Norton.
Erikson, E. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: W.W. Norton.
Erikson, E. (1980). Identity and the life cycle (2
nd
ed.). New York: W.W. Norton.
Evans, N. J., Forney, D. E., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development in
college: Theory research and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fass, R. (1986). In loco parentis revisited? Change, 18, 34-40.
Findlaw (2006). U.S. Consitution: Fourteenth Amendment. Retrieved June 23, 2006
from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/.
Fisher, B. (1995). Crime and fear on campus. Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, 539, 85-101.
Fowler, G.A. (1984). The legal relationship between the American College Student
and the College: An historical perspective and the renewal of the proposal.
Journal of Law and Education, 13(3), 401-417.
Gehring, D.D. (2001). The objectives of student discipline and the process that’s
due: Are they compatible? NASPA, 38(4), 466-481.
Gehring, D.D., & Callaway, R.L. (1997). Compliance with the notice requirement
of the campus security act. College and University, 73, 13-18.
Gehring, D.D., & Janosik, S.M. (2003). The impact of the Clery Campus Crime
Disclosure Act on student behavior. Journal of College Student Development,
44(1), 81-91.
Gott v. Berea College, 161 S.W. 204, 206 (Kentucky 1913).
Gregory, D.E. & Janosik, S.E. (2002). The Clery Act: How effective is it?
Perceptions from the field–The current state of the research and
recommendations for improvement. Stetson Law Review, 32, 7-59.
Gregory, D.E. & Janosik, S.E. (2003). The Clery Act and its influence on campus
law enforcement practices. NASPA, 41(1), 180-197.
Gregory, D.E. & Janosik, S.E. (2003).The effect of the Clery Act on campus
judicial practices. Journal of College Student Development, 44(6), 763-778.
151
Grossi, E.L., & Edwards, T.D. (1997). Student misconduct: Historical trends in
legislative and judicial decision-making in American universities. Journal of
College and University Law, 23(4), 829-852.
Hoekema, D. (1996). College life in America: Historical context and legal
issues. New Directions for Student Services, 73, 3-17.
Jacoby, B. (1989). The student-as-commuter: Developing a comprehensive
institutional response. (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 7).
Washington D. C.: School of Education and Human Development, George
Washington University.
Janosik, S. M. (2001). The impact of the Campus Crime Awareness Act of 1998 on
student decision-making. NASPA, 38(3), 348-360.
Janosik, S.M. (2002). Parents’ views on the Jeanne Clery Campus Crime Act and
campus safety. Journal of College Student Development, 44, 763-778.
Janosik, S. M. & Plummer E. (2005). The Clery Act, campus safety and the views
of the assault victim advocates. College Student Affairs Journal, 25(1), 116-
130.
Kaplin, W. A. & Lee, B. A. (1995). Overview of postsecondary education law.
The Law of Higher Education (3d. Ed) (pp. 5-7). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lawson, C.R., & Daniels, J.L. (1974). Procedural due process in higher education:
A protection of students’ rights. The Southern Quarterly, 12(3), 217-223.
Maslow, A.H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper Collins
Publishers.
Maslow, A.H. (1968). Toward a psychology of being. New York: John Wiley and
Sons.
Melear, K.B. (2003). From in loco parentis to consumerism: A legal analysis of
the contractual relationship between institution and student. NASPA, 40(4),
124-148.
Moore, M. (2006). Duke examines impact of lacrosse incident. Retrieved April 7,
2006 from http://media.www.dukechronicle.com
Mueller, J. & Rotberg E. (2006). Dancer made prior allegations. Retrieved April
4, 2007 from http://media.www.dukechronicle.com.
152
Murphy, R.K., Arnold, W.H., Hansen, K.R. & Mertler, C.A. (2001). The effects of
the Campus Security Act on the perceptions of safety and safety behaviors of
first year students. The Journal of College and University Student Housing,
29(2), 31-35.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (1997). Campus crime and security at
postsecondary institutions. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Education,
Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
New York Times (1986). Around the nation: Lehigh University student held in
slaying. Retrieved May 26, 2006 from www.nytimes.com.
Palmer, C.J., Lowery, J.W., Wilson, M.E., & Ghering, D.D. (2003). Parental
notification policies, practices, and impacts in 2000 and 2002. Journal of
College and University Student Housing, 31(2), 3-6.
Pascarella, E. T. & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third
decade of research (Vol. 2). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.)
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Pepperdine University (2007). About Pepperdine University. Retrieved on February
12, 2007 from www.pepperdine.edu.
Public Law 101-542 (1990). The Student Right-to-Know and Campus Security Act.
Public Law 105-244 (1998). Higher Education Amendments Act of 1998.
Sanford, N. (1967). Where colleges fail: A study of the student as a person. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Santucci, K.B., Gable, R.K. & Rong, Y. (1999). Student attitudes and behaviors
regarding campus safety. Journal of College and University Student
Housing, 28(2), 12-18.
Schlossberg, N. K. (1984). Counseling adults in transition: Linking practice with
theory. New York: Springer.
Schlossberg, N. K., Lynch, A. Q., & Chickering, A. W. (1999). Improving higher
education environments for adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
153
Schlossberg, N. K., Waters, E. B., & Goodman, J. (1995). Counseling adults in
transition (2
nd
ed.). New York: Springer.
Security on Campus (2006). The Clery Act. Retrieved on May 18, 2006 from
http://www.securityoncampus.org/schools/cleryact/index.html.
Student Press Law Center (1999). Student media guide to the Clery Act: Frequently
asked questions about the new federal campus crime reporting law.
Legal Analysis 21(1), 30. Retrieved June 14, 2006 from
http://www.splc.org/report_detail.asp?id=541&edition=3.
Thelin, J. (2004). A history of American higher education. Baltimore: John
Hopkins University Press.
Thomas, N. (1991). The new in loco parentis. Change, 33-39.
University of California, Riverside (2007). About UCR. Retrieved on February 12,
2007 from www.ucr.edu.
University of Southern California (2006). USC at a glance. Retrieved on June 14,
2006 from www.usc.edu.
U.S. Department of Education (2005). The handbook for campus crime reporting.
Retrieved on April 2, 2006 from
http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/handbook.pdf
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education (2006). Summary
crime statistics. Retrieved on June 8, 2006 from
http://ope.ed.gov/security/instdetail.asp.
Van Alstyne, William, W. (1969). The tentative emergence of student power in the
United States. The American Journal of Comparative Law. 17(3), 403-417.
Weigel, David. (2004). Welcome to the fun-free university. Reason, 36(5), 41-47.
Wood, R.A. (1999). Is Campus Crime Rampant? Journal of College and University
Student Housing, 28(2), 7-14.
Zirkel, P. & Reichner H. (1987). Is in loco parentis dead? Phi Delta Kappa, 68(2),
466-469.
154
APPENDIX A
USC Department of Public Safety Security Report (Appendix A)
“The University of Southern California, Department of Public Safety is providing
this notice of a criminal incident that occurred in our community in order to provide
information that may help in avoiding a similar crime or provide information to solve
this crime. This notice is also intended to meet the requirements of the Timely
Notice provisions of the federal Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy
and Campus Crime Statistic Act of 1998” (University of Southern California, 2006).
Robbery Date & Time of Occurrence: July 24, 2006 at 2:53am
Location: Intersection of Jefferson & Hill Street
Reported Offense: The complainant reported that two suspects approached
him and demanded property. The complainant complied and the suspects
fled the area on foot.
Suspect Description (provided by complainant): Suspect -Male, black, 25-30
years old, 240 pounds, and short hair. Suspect 2-Male, black, 25-30 years
old, 240 pound, and short hair.
Suspect Vehicle: No vehicle was seen.
If you have any information about these crimes, call the Department of Public Safety.
TAKE A STAND AGAINST ROBBERY:
Always walk on busy streets-Avoid walking alone.
Avoid using cell phones or MP3 players while walking-Suspects target
phones and other items in plain view.
Do not carry expensive purses or bags. Conceal them inside of a larger bag.
In the event of a robbery, stay calm and comply with the suspect's demands.
After the robbery, call the Department of Public Safety (DPS) right away.
The first 2 minutes after a crime occurs are critical to law enforcement.
If you observe a crime in progress, Stay calm and call DPS.
Be a Good Witness. Describe exactly what you observed with as many
details as possible. Give complete descriptions such as sex, race, age, height,
weight, hair color, clothing, tattoos, and scars. Try to get the license plate if a
vehicle is involved.
From: “Crime Alert CA2006-45: July 24, 2006” by USC Department of Public
Safety, 2006.
155
APPENDIX B
UCR University of California Police Department Security Report (Appendix B)
Yesterday at about 5:00pm three Hispanic males all 16-18 years old, about 5’10” tall,
180 pounds wearing dark colored clothing; approached a UCR student who was
listening to an MP3 player while walking on a pathway leading to the Campus
Health Center (Veitch Center). One suspect pushed the student and grabbed the
MP3 out of the student's hand while the other subjects watched. All 3 suspects ran
away and the student sustained no injuries. UCPD Officers searched the area for the
suspects, but made no arrests. UCPD will increase it's presence in this area.
In a Washington Post Article, Detective David Swinson of the D.C. police said MP3
Player and IPOD thefts remind him of how criminals began targeting laptops several
years ago. At first, thieves hesitated to steal these computers because they did not
have a market of which to unload them.
“IPods and MP3 players have become more desirable items, unfortunately,” Swinson
said. “Burglars are taking things they can carry with them, and iPods fall into that
category. They are not going to take something they don't already have a market for.
They know they can sell iPods and MP3 players.” Swinson said informants have told
him that there is profitable market for these players.
Please remember this whenever you carry or leave these devices in plain view. If you
have any information related to this case, please contact a UCPD Detective at 951-
827-5387.
From: “Crime involving MP3 Players & iPODS: April 11, 007” by UCR University
of California Police Department, 2006.
156
APPENDIX C
Pepperdine University Department of Public Safety Security Report (Appendix C)
1/29/07 1:58 p.m.
Hit and run, non-injury accident
Location: Seaver Drive
Summary: A moving vehicle struck a parked
vehicle. Responsible party left no contact
information. Minor damages reported.
1/30/07 7:48a.m.
Medical, person injured
Location: Hall Upsilon – Ray Dewey
Summary: Student injured his or her foot.
PFD and LA County Paramedics responded.
Student was transported to nearby hospital by
ambulance.
1/30/07 4:14 p.m.
Larceny-theft
Location: Off campus
Summary: Pepperdine staff member reported
to be a victim of an auto burglary at an off
campus location. University keys, ID card and
credit card were among the items stolen.
1/31/07 2:19 a.m.
Medical, person injured
Location: Dorm Phi Beta
Summary: A student reported experiencing
chest pains. PFD and LA County Paramedics
responded. The student was transported to
nearby hospital by ambulance.
2/1/07 5:21 a.m.
Trespassing
Location: Richard Rockwell Towers lot
Summary: DPS officer found two people
sleeping in a van. They were escorted off
campus.
2/1/07 6:58 a.m.
Vehicle Relocation
Location: Rho parking lot
Summary: An illegally parked vehicle was
relocated to Upper Eddy D. Field lot by
Malibu Tow.
2/1/07 9:20 a.m.
Vehicle Relocation
Location: Richard Rockwell Towers lot
Summary: An illegally parked vehicle was
relocated to Upper Eddy D. Field lot by
Malibu Tow.
2/1/07 4:26 p.m.
Non-injury vehicle accident
Location: Center for Communication &
Business
Summary: A moving vehicle struck a
Pepperdine Wave shuttle. The vehicle rolled
back into the shuttle at the CCB lot control
gate arm. Minor Damage was reported.
2/3/07 3:40 p.m.
Non-injury vehicle accident
Location: Seaver Drive
Summary: A moving vehicle struck two
parked vehicles. A student reported that his or
her car ran our of gas and hit a parked car,
which rolled into another parked car. Minor
damages were reported.
2/5/07 5:25 p.m.
Medical, person injured
Location: Communications & Business lot
Summary: University staff member was
feeling faint after donating blood. PFD and
LA County Paramedics responded. The staff
member was transported to nearby hospital by
ambulance.
From: “Public Safety Reports” compiled by The Graphic staff from Pepperdine
University Department of Public Safety Reports, 2007.
157
APPENDIX D
University of Southern California, “TrojansAlert” System (Appendix D)
As recent events have shown, an emergency or crisis situation can occur without
notice anywhere in the world or our nation - including at major universities such as
USC. To better prepare our students, faculty, and staff for emergency response, we
are pleased to announce that USC has recently acquired a new means of contacting
and sharing information with our community in event of an emergency.
We recently launched “TrojansAlert,” which is a system that sends out text
messages, voicemails, and e-mails from USC Administration and the Department of
Public Safety. The system is designed to alert the community rapidly to emergency
situations affecting USC and its facilities, and to give simple instructions to help
individuals respond to the event.
In order to best protect the Trojan Family, we are writing to ask all members of the
USC community to enroll in the TrojansAlert system without delay. To do so, please
visit the Web site: https://trojansalert.usc.edu . There, you will have the option to
designate how you would like us to contact you - by text message to your cell phone,
e-mail to your account, voicemail to a phone number you designate, in any
combination. Please note that all the information you enter will be kept confidential,
and used only in event of a true emergency situation.
Again, we need your help: please enroll in TrojansAlert today. It will only take a
minute or two, and your participation in this system will help all of us be active
partners in making our community safer - and able to respond in an emergency.
Please note that the TrojansAlert system is only one part of our emergency response
plan. More information on USC’s emergency response system is online at:
http://www.usc.edu/emergency/ and the USC emergency information hotline is (213)
740-9233.
If you have any questions about the new system, please contact the Department of
Public Safety at (213) 740-5519 or e-mail to TrojansAlert@caps.usc.edu.
From: “TrojansAlert” System: August 13, 2007” by USC Department of Public
Safety, 2007.
158
APPENDIX E
Recruitment Tool (Appendix E)
The following e-mail was sent to approximately 1000 students at the three
participating universities:
Dear Student,
My name is Sarvenaz Aliabadi and I am a USC doctoral student conducting research
regarding students’ perceptions of crime on college campuses. The goal of my study
is to understand how student behaviors change based on reports of crimes occurring
on or near campus. This information will be used to provide university staff the tools
to make universities safer places for students.
The survey is targeted at undergraduate students who meet the following criteria:
first time (directly out of high school), residential, full-time enrollees who are at least
18 years old.
I would like to invite you to participate in the survey, which will be conducted online
and is only expected to take 5 minutes (20 brief questions). Click this link when you
are ready to take the survey; your prompt participation is appreciated.
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=943722911886.
During the survey, you will have the opportunity to volunteer to participate in
separate interviews. If you choose to do so, you can volunteer for the interview by
including your e-mail address at the end of the survey. This participation is
completely voluntary.
Thank you for all of your help. The research that will be gathered is incredibly
valuable to students and will aid in creating a safer campus for everyone now and in
the future.
Sincerely,
Sarvenaz Aliabadi, Ed.D Candidate
159
APPENDIX F
Informed Consent (Appendix F)
Thank you for clicking the survey link. Your input on the following survey is greatly
appreciated for the research study I am conducting on students’ perceptions of crime
on college campuses. Please take the time to complete every question. I sincerely
appreciate your help. Every answer you give will be important for my analysis.
Thanks again for completing my survey.
Sincerely,
Sarvenaz Aliabadi, Ed.D Candidate
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH
You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Sarvenaz Aliabadi,
Ed.D candidate, and her faculty advisor Michael L. Jackson, Ed.D, Vice President of
Student Affairs, from the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern
California. Sarvenaz Aliabadi is a doctoral student and all research results will be
contributed to her dissertation. You were selected as a possible participant in this
study because you are an undergraduate and traditional student. "Traditional
students" is the term used to describe first time, residential, full-time enrollees direct
out of high school who are at least 18 years old. A total of 360 subjects will be
selected between the ages of 18-23 to participate. Your participation is voluntary.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
You are asked to take part in this research study to help learn more about the Clery
Act and its effects on student behaviors. We are interested in determining how the
Clery Act has changed traditional students’ behavior on college and university
campuses and what it has taught you about how to be safe. The first goal of this
study is to determine how the Clery Act has affected your learning and development
process with regard to your knowledge of crime and the measures you will take to
protect yourself. The second goal is to explore how the Clery Act has influenced and
changed your behaviors over time.
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no anticipated risks to your participation; you may experience some
discomfort at completing the questionnaire or you may be inconvenienced from
taking time out of your day to complete the questionnaire/survey instrument, etc. If
there are any questions that make you uncomfortable please know that they can be
skipped and not answered.
160
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You may not directly benefit from your participation in this research study.
However, as a result of participating in this research you are helping to improve
safety on university campuses. University student affairs departments are responsible
for doing this and there is a need to help them to gain a better understanding of how
to improve current safety practices. Once completed, this study will add to the
practice of student affairs by assessing how students learn to be safe on college and
university campuses. Through this assessment student affairs professionals will be
able to better understand what services to provide you in order to improve safety
programs on campuses. In addition, student affairs professionals will be able to
determine how the Clery Act contributes to change in student behavior. Through the
knowledge gained, student affairs professionals can learn whether change in
behavior is a result of the Clery Act or if change is brought about through another
method.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not receive any payment for your participation in this research study.
CONFIDENTIALITY
There will be no information obtained in connection with this study and that can be
identified with you. Your name, address or other information that may identify you
will not be collected during this research study. Only members of the research team
will have access to the data associated with this study. The data will be stored in the
investigator’s home in a locked file cabinet/password protected computer. The data
will be entered in the computer of the researcher and then be coded; the coded data
will be kept in the computer files of the researcher in which only she will have
access. The data will only be released to the researcher’s dissertation committee
because it is a part of a dissertation. The purpose of this disclosure will be to help
student affairs departments on university campus provide for their students by
creating a safe environment. The data will be stored for three years after the study
has been completed and then destroyed. When the results of the research are
published or discussed in conferences, there will be no information that will be
included that may reveal your identity since no identifiers are being collected from
you. You have the right to review/edit any audiotapes with the researcher.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this
study, you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may
also refuse to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the
study. The investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise
which warrant doing so.
161
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your
participation in this research study. If you have questions regarding your rights as a
research subject, contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for
Research Advancement, Grace Ford Salvatori Hall, Room 306, Los Angeles, CA
90089-1695, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
Sarvenaz Aliabadi at the Joint Educational Project, sarvenaa@usc.edu, 801 West
34th Street Los Angeles, CA, 90089-0471, (213) 740-1834 or at Office of the Vice
President for Student Affairs Student Union Building 201 3601 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089 (213) 740-2421.
BY CLICKING "NEXT" BELOW YOU ARE CONSENTING TO PARTICIPATE
IN THIS RESEARCH PROJECT
162
APPENDIX G
Survey for Students (Appendix G)
Fill in answers to the following questions:
1) Which campus do you attend?
○USC ○UCSD ○Pepperdine
2) How much do you know about the Clery Act?
○None ○A Little ○Some ○Somewhat Knowledgeable ○A Lot
3) Did you look up your institutions annual report on crime before making your
decision regarding where to go to college?
○Yes ○No
4) Did the universities crime statistics affect your decision to attend?
○Yes ○No
5) Has anyone you know (friend, family, faculty, staff) has any experiences with
crime during the time you have been at the university?
○Yes ○No
6) Reflecting on your first year experience, how safe did you feel when you
were on campus?
○Not Safe ○Somewhat Safe ○Very Safe
7) Have the ways in which you keep yourself safe on campus changed since
your first year?
○Yes ○No
8) How did you learn about safety when you arrived at the university?
○Parents ○Literature ○Resident Advisor ○Online ○University Program
○Other, Please Specify______________________________________
9) Did you receive any literature from the university regarding safety when you
arrived on campus?
○Yes ○No
10) To what extent would you agree with the following statement? The literature
I received regarding crime prevention changed the way I protect myself.
○Strongly Disagree ○Disagree ○Neutral ○Agree ○Strongly Agree
163
11) Since arriving on campus have you attended at least one crime prevention
program?
○Yes ○No
12) To what extent would you agree with the following statement? The
information I learned from attending a crime prevention program changed the
way in which I protect myself?
○Strongly Disagree ○Disagree ○Neutral ○Agree ○Strongly Agree
13) To what extent would you agree with the following statement? The
University is doing a good job in terms of protecting students from crime on
campus.
○Strongly Disagree ○Disagree ○Neutral ○Agree ○Strongly Agree
14) What is your gender?
○Male ○Female
15) What is your Ethnicity?
○Asian/Pacific Islander ○Black/African American ○Hispanic
○Native American/American Indian ○White/Caucasian
○Unknown/Other
16) Classify the community in which you grew up?
○Rural ○Suburban ○Urban
17) Where have you lived since arriving on campus? (Check all that apply)
○Residence Hall ○Campus Housing ○Greek Housing
○Private Apartment ○Commuter
18) What year are you in terms of fulfilling your degree?
○1st ○2nd ○3rd ○4th
19) How old will you be by January 2007?
○18 ○19 ○20 ○21 ○22 ○23
20) What is your cumulative GPA to date?
○Less than 2.00 ○2.01-2.25 ○2.26-2.50 ○2.51-2.75 ○2.76-3.00
○3.01-3.25 ○3.26-3.50 ○3.51-3.75 ○3.76-4.00
21) What is your parents’ income?
○Less than 30,000 ○30,001-50,000 ○50,001-70,000 ○70,001-100,000
○More than 100,001
164
22) If you would like to participate in the interview portion of this study please
include your e-mail address below and the researcher will contact you.
165
APPENDIX H
Interview Protocol for Students (Appendix H)
Note: The interview will be preceded with a brief explanation of the researcher’s
background as well as a description of the study. The researcher will first ask the
respondents permission for tape-recording the interview. The researcher will also
assure the respondents that all of their responses will be kept confidential. In addition
the researcher will tell the respondents that they are free to refrain from answering
any question at any time and may request that the researcher turn off the tape-
recorder if they do not wish for a particular response to be recorded.
1) Demographic information: Which campus do you attend? What year are you
in terms of fulfilling your degree?
2) What do you know about the Clery Act?
3) Describe any experiences you have had with crime since your arrival at the
university?
4) Has anyone you know (friend, family, faculty, staff) had any experience with
crime during the time you have been at the university?
5) What made you decide to attend this university?
6) To what extent did the university’s crime statistics affect your decision to
attend?
7) What methods do you use to keep yourself safe on campus?
8) Reflecting on your first year experience, how safe did you feel on campus?
Has that feeling changed? In what ways?
9) If you have a bad day where do you go on campus that makes you feel safe
(library, residents halls, your parents house, etc.)?
10) Describe the ways in which you learned about safety when you arrived at the
university (parent, literature, Resident Advisor, online, etc.)? Which way was
most helpful?
11) Do you remember receiving any literature regarding crime awareness and
protection when you arrived at the university?
166
12) How did you change your behavior in terms of protecting yourself once
receiving the literature regarding crime protection?
13) Since arriving on campus have you attended a crime prevention program?
14) How did the information you learned in the crime prevention program change
the way in which you protect yourself?
15) What advice would you give to student affairs professionals at the university
to help them better protect students?
16) Suppose you a recommending a university to your little brother or sister and
your only concerns are crime and safety, would you recommend your
institution?
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The purpose of the Clery Act is to increase students' awareness of crimes taking place on college and university campuses. Through the analysis of student perspectives related to crime, student affairs professionals can better understand the influence of the Clery Act. However, whether students are changing their behaviors over time with regard to their own safety is still in question. The purpose of this study is to investigate how the Clery Act has changed traditional students' (first-time, full-time, and first-year students attending college or university directly out of high school) behavior on college and university campuses and what it has taught these students about how to be safe.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The Clery Act: leadership perspectives from senior student affairs officers
PDF
Sexual violence prevention on college campus as a Clery Act requirement: perceptions from the field
PDF
The role of student affairs professionals: serving the needs of undocumented college students
PDF
The sources of impact on first-generation Latino college students' identity development: from the students' perspective
PDF
The effect of practicing music classroom procedures on the behavior of beginning band students
PDF
Undergraduate single mothers' perception of the impacts of college on their cognitive and psychosocial development
PDF
An examination of collaboration amongst student affairs and academic affairs professionals in an action research project
PDF
Creating community online: the effects of online social networking communities on college students' experiences
PDF
How college students use online social networks to gather information
PDF
Proposition 209: a case study on the impact of race-based legislation on student affairs at the University of California
PDF
Student-athletes and leadership: a case study of the impact of collegiate athletics on social change behavior and leadership development
PDF
Understanding the reporting behavior of international college student bystanders in sexual assault situations
PDF
Examining the relationship between students’ pre-college experiences and outcomes in diversity courses
PDF
The impact of name, image, and likeness (NIL) legislation on the decision-making process regarding school attendance for student-athletes
PDF
The role of positive behavior systems in reducing exclusionary school discipline
PDF
Senior-level student affairs' administrators' self-reported leadership practices, behaviors, and strategies
PDF
The role of historically underserved students’ perceptions of their high school counselor in overcoming the equity gap in college admissions: an evaluative study
PDF
The impact of campus closures: experiences of first-generation college students at a 4-year private university in southern California
PDF
The work-life balance pursuit: challenges, supports, and strategies of successful women senior student affairs officers
PDF
First-generation college students: perceptions, access, and participation at urban university
Asset Metadata
Creator
Aliabadi, Sarvenaz
(author)
Core Title
Understanding the effects of the Clery Act on college students' behaviors: how can student affairs professionals change the current practices of college students with regard to safety
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
09/14/2007
Defense Date
09/06/2007
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
campus safety,change in student behaviors,changes in students,Clery Act,crime awareness,crime protection,crime statistics,Jeanne Clery,Jeanne Clery disclosure of campus security policy and campus crime statistics act,OAI-PMH Harvest,Safety,student affairs,Virginia Tech tragedy
Place Name
California
(states),
USA
(countries)
Language
English
Advisor
Jackson, Michael L. (
committee chair
), Suite, Denzil (
committee member
), Tuitt, Donahue (
committee member
)
Creator Email
Sarvy1@aol.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m819
Unique identifier
UC1273166
Identifier
etd-Aliabadi-20070914 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-554127 (legacy record id),usctheses-m819 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Aliabadi-20070914.pdf
Dmrecord
554127
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Aliabadi, Sarvenaz
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
campus safety
change in student behaviors
changes in students
Clery Act
crime awareness
crime protection
crime statistics
Jeanne Clery
Jeanne Clery disclosure of campus security policy and campus crime statistics act
student affairs
Virginia Tech tragedy